Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by benmurphy263
4 min read 3

9

Building effective altruismCommunityEffective givingEffective altruism fundingResearchStudent projects
Frontpage

TL;DR: I am looking for funding of around $1,000 to complete an effective altruism donations experiment with real money. I think this experiment has implications on how to best spread EA ideas. I am posting on the EA forum to get feedback on the idea and to discover potential funding opportunities.

As far as I'm aware, not much research has been done on the psychology of effective altruism. A lot of psychology literature focuses on the psychological factors behind charitable giving (see Small et al. - Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims as an example). I am interested in understanding how exposure to effective altruist thinking impacts actual donations in a psychological experiment. This would be completed as my master's dissertation at the London School of Economics.

Research Implications

I believe the results of this experiment may have implications on how to do the most good. In Small et al.'s experiment among others, findings show that being made to think analytically about donations reduces donation amounts. If this result holds when considering charity cost effectiveness, this means that effective giving could backfire. If this is true, I think it is important to be aware of this when spreading effective altruist ideas, especially to non-typical effective altruist audiences.

Experimental Design

This is the rough idea for the experiment, however the practicalities (including if any moderating/mediating variables are included) are likely to change through fine tuning with my supervisor.

The experiment would follow a 2x2 design:

  • The first factor would be effectiveness, each participant would receive either a cost ineffective charity or a cost effective charity, although effectiveness information would not be present.
  • The second factor would be an EA intervention, half of the participants would read an effective altruist vignette discussing cost effectiveness, and the other half would receive no intervention.
 EffectiveIneffective
No Intervention"Any money that you donate will go to the Against Malaria Foundation. Around 625,000 people die each year from Malaria and 70% of them are children under 5. Your donation will be used to provide life saving bed nets."An ineffective charity would be chosen which provides life saving medical treatment - TBC.
InterventionEA vignette read initially

"Any money that you donate will go to the Against Malaria Foundation. Around 625,000 people die each year from Malaria and 70% of them are children under 5. Your donation will be used to provide life saving bed nets."		EA vignette read initially

An ineffective charity would be chosen which provides life saving medical treatment - TBC.

Effective altruist vignette:

"The researchers would like to bring your attention to the effective altruism movement. Effective altruists use evidence to find the best ways of doing good, and try to do the most good that they can.

Effective altruists are particularly concerned with charitable donations, and claim that we should donate to cost effective charities which save the most lives per dollar. For example, providing malaria bed nets is one of the most effective causes, with an estimated cost of $4,500 to save one life. 'Cause here' is an example of an ineffective cause, with an estimated cost of 'cost here' to save one life."

Prediction

Two hypotheses would be tested:

  • Hypothesis 1: Considering the cost effectiveness of giving should reduce giving to an ineffective charity
  • Hypothesis 2: Considering the cost effectiveness of giving should have no effect on giving to an effective charity.

These predictions follow from psychological literature on the effect that analytical thinking has on donations (see Small et al.). Of course, it is quite possible that the experimental result differs from the hypotheses, which would nevertheless be useful information.

Procedure

150 US participants would be recruited from Prolific (preliminary power calculations predict that n=150 would be more than sufficient to detect the same effect size as found in Small et al.). Each participant would be paid $2 for participating in a short unrelated survey. Upon completion, participants will be given a $5 bonus - they will be told that researchers are raising funds for charity, and they will be given of the option of donating a proportion of their bonus to the charity in their experimental condition.

What I Need

Psychological experiments on donations work best with real money. I doubt I would observe an effect measuring donation intentions given the intention behaviour gap. I am therefore seeking funding of~$1,000 to complete this experiment with real money. To reiterate, I think the results of this experiment could have implications on how best to spread EA ideas, and therefore the small cost of this experiment is more than worth it on balance. As such, I am seeking recommendations for small grants to apply for. I am considering the EA infrastructure fund but I'm not quite sure that this fits.

I am also seeking thoughts and feedback on this idea. I'm an inexperienced researcher, so I'm quite aware that the structure of the experiment could be improved. I'm also interested to know if you disagree with my predictions or if you think the implications aren't as meaningful as I propose. I may also have missed some previous discussions on the same problem. 

Finally, I am aware of the limitation that I'm only really testing one shot, one option donation decisions, and not donation reallocation. However, I propose that the experiment is still meaningful as non-typical EA audiences are less likely to spend time or effort researching charity effectiveness and reallocating donations. Exposure to EA ideas may therefore mean that:

  • Present non-effective donations are reduced or cancelled without being reallocated to a more effective cause.
  • Future ad-hoc giving opportunities are passed up on due to being 'cost ineffective', but money that would have been given is not allocated to a more effective cause.

Donation allocation could be tested by offering the choice between two charities in another experiment - however this may require more funding. I am, of course, also interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

9

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Luke Moore 🔸4
3
0

See these papers on EA and effective charitable giving by Paul Bloom and Lucius Caviola. 

Reply
Ben Millwood🔸2
1
0

'Cause here' is an example of an ineffective cause, with an estimated cost of 'cost here' to save one life.

You might find it tricky to fill these in. In general cost estimates for less effective charities are, when they exist at all, much less developed and much lower quality, because it's laborious to develop an accurate estimate and there's not much demand for precision once something is unlikely to be a top charity.

The nature of the effective altruist project is mostly to distinguish between "known to be effective" and "not known to be effective", and there's rarely any appetite for going the extra mile to "known not to be effective".

(I do expect there will be something you can use here, with at least a rough estimate, but don't expect the same rigour as you'll see with the effective charities.)

Reply
huw1
1
0

Some feedback on your vignette—I can imagine a confounding effect from feeling like 'a group of people wants to influence my decision-making' or something similar. A purer form of your experiment might just include the cost-effectiveness numbers for both charities.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Relevant opportunities
7
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
41
Meta Charity Funders: 2025 Spring round. Apply now!
Joey🔸
· · 2m read
0
0
40
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
View more