Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

775

Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011)use asterix (*) to get italics
Mannix Chan, Gilad FeldmanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2024
<p>Individuals who donate to charity may be affected by various biases and donate inefficiently. In a replication and extension Registered Report with a US Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 1403), we replicated Studies 1 to 4 in Baron and Szymanska (2011) with extensions on reputation and overhead funding. We found support for the effects of a preference for lower perceived waste (d = 0.70, 95% CI [0.41, 0.99]), lower past costs (d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.16, 1.02]), for the ingroup (d = 0.52, 95% CI [0.47, 0.58]), for having some diversification between charities (d = 0.63, 95% CI [0.47, 0.78] for single projects; d = 1.18, 95% CI [1.00, 1.36] for several projects versus one), and against forced charity (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.37]; nominally replicated, but has caveats regarding validity); as at least four of our five hypotheses were found to replicate, we conclude this as being a successful replication. Extending the replication, we found support for an unexpected preference for anonymity on donation allocation (opposite to our predictions; d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.46, 0.61]), and support for a preference towards paid-for overhead costs on donation allocation (d = 0.60, 95% CI [0.52, 0.68]). We discuss the implications and validity of these findings. All materials, data, and code were made available on: https://osf.io/bep78/.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
effective altruism, heuristics, utilitarianism, donations, efficacy, charity, cognitive biases, registered report, replication
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2024-04-27 02:28:49
Romain Espinosa