Hi, thank you for the report summary! This seems pretty promising, though part of me wonders if there would be some serious limits to using this in some of the ways that some EA organizations may like to. In general, these experiments deal with a calf that is victimized, yet a lot of EA interventions focus on chickens, fish, or shrimp. My intuition is that omnivores are less likely to feel an impulse to donate for a victimized shrimp or fish than a calf (and many of my non-EA/non-utilitarian friends often cut out beef rather than chicken in their attempts to do better out of a stated respect for the life of a cow). Is there perhaps more solid evidence or further investigation that may occur about the effect of species on total dollars donated?
Thank you for this concise report ! I have two comments, that I think could spurr into one's mind :
1-This is probably outside of your scope, but I think that Deep Canvassing somehow relies on a similar effect, notably, sharing a personal (hence, identifiable) experience and building rapport. Given the attention it received and its strong supportive evidence, I would be curious to know whether you have any idea related to using Deep Canvassing for non-humans.
2-I think there is a broader question in terms of espitemic virtue -is it really ethical to rely on an "old trick" to convince people? It could also be that correcting for the epistemic vice of the identifiable victim effect actually yields an even better result (see this post)
Very nice report, and thank you for sharing it here.
I am currently working on a meta-analysis of interventions intended to reduce MAP consumption -- first draft published on the forum here. My main question about this paper is: did you all collect (or consider collecting) MAP consumption outcomes? I like the behavioral outcomes you collect, and I think that giving money is not at all a cheap signal. I'd also be interested in whether a week later people are still thinking about it in a way that affects their purchases. (I am guessing that the mTurk-based design made collecting these kinds of follow-up data challenging.)
I noticed you've included the default effect in your work. I have some article summaries that might be helpful, especially if you're still in the process of reviewing additional papers.
In fact, we're planning to measure actual plant-based choices in our next experiment, so your insights are particularly valuable!
In an era where we are no longer dependent on animal protein and can survive and even thrive on plant-based nutrition - a diet that is increasingly recognized for its health (Melina, Craig, and Levin 2016) and environmental benefits (Ranganathan et al. 2016), our study “Giving Farm Animals a Name and a Face” explores a unique approach to animal advocacy. We investigate whether the identifiable victim effect, a well-documented phenomenon in eliciting prosocial behavior (Small and Loewenstein, 2003), can be leveraged to promote empathy and action toward farm animals among omnivores.
The Identifiable Victim Effect
Previous research has shown that stories about a single, identifiable victim are more effective in evoking prosocial affect and behavior than information about anonymous or statistical victims (Jenni and Loewenstein 1997; Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic 2007; Kogut and Ritov 2005b, [a] 2005). This phenomenon, known as the identifiable victim effect, although usually accompanied by a photo or a video of the identifiable victim, suggests that even minimal identifiability can significantly increase caring and donations (Small and Loewenstein 2003). Our research expands on this concept, exploring its application in animal advocacy and, mainly, whether one can elicit compassion for farm animals among omnivores.
The Identifiable Animal Victim Effect
Research on the identifiable victim effect, primarily focused on human beneficiaries, has only recently expanded to animal victims. Studies explored this effect with endangered animals and climate crisis (Markowitz et al. 2013; Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004). Markowitz’s study (2013) revealed that non-environmentalists were more likely to donate to a single identified animal victim, such as a panda than a group. However, this effect was not as prominent among environmentalists, possibly due to their already high prosocial intentions. These findings suggest that the identifiable victim effect can be a crucial factor in animal advocacy, highlighting the unique impact of emotional connection to a single, identifiable animal.
Our study uniquely challenges the identifiable victim effect by focusing on omnivores, who are the very reason the victim needs help in the first place.
Method
Participants were exposed to an experimental intervention and answered questionnaires.
Intervention
Lucky’s story. Drawing inspiration from real-life cases, we centered on Lucky, a fictional calf who was given a name and a face (picture), or unidentified calves without a name and a face.
Potential mechanisms
Sympathy. For example, “Lucky’s (The farm animals’) story made me very sad.”
Personal distress. For example, “I felt sympathy toward Lucky (the farm animal).”
Ambivalence towards meat. For example, “I feel torn between the two sides of eating meat.”
Potential conditions
Concern. For example, “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.”
Perspective-taking. For example: “I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.”
Empathy. For example: “If I see someone fidgeting, I’ll start feeling anxious too.”
Identification with animals. Composed of solidarity with animals (for example, “I feel committed to animals”), similarity to animals (for example, “I have a lot in common with the average animal”), and animal pride (for example, “Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as an animal”).
Ecological identity. Composed of sameness (for example: “I am someone who is strongly connected to nature and the environment”), differentiation (for example: “I identify with people who doubt global warming is happening,” reverse-coded, was not included in the final analysis), and centrality (for example: “I likely to discuss wildlife, nature, or environmental issues with classmates or coworkers”).
Results
Willingness to Sign and Share a Petition
Experiment 1 presented a hypothetical petition to save Lucky from slaughter. Omnivores who read the story about Lucky (rather than the calves) were more willing to sign and share a petition.
It was sympathy rather than personal distress that explained the effect.
Actual Signing of a Petition and Supporting It
Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 with actual behavior. Participants signed more often a real petition to save Lucky (rather than calves) and indicated higher support for the petition.
Omnivores who scored high in concern and low in empathy and identification with animals (potentially more room for improvement) were more susceptible to the effect.
Actual Donations
Experiment 3 extended our findings by disentangling identifiability (the effect of a name and a face) from singularity (the effect of a single individual), in addition to changing the dependent variable from signing a petition to actual donations. Participants donated more often and a higher amount when exposed to a single, identifiable victim vs. unidentified or multiple victims.
Ambivalence towards meat explained the effect.
Omnivores who scored high in ecological identity were more susceptible to the effect.
Limitations and practical implications
The limitations include a surprisingly large percentage of vegetarians and vegans in our samples.
However, our study suggests that a more effective way to elicit higher levels of sympathetic emotional responses, felt ambivalence towards meat, and pro-animal advocacy behavior might be to present single, identifiable target examples such as Lucky, the 1-year-old calf.
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
Hi, thank you for the report summary! This seems pretty promising, though part of me wonders if there would be some serious limits to using this in some of the ways that some EA organizations may like to. In general, these experiments deal with a calf that is victimized, yet a lot of EA interventions focus on chickens, fish, or shrimp. My intuition is that omnivores are less likely to feel an impulse to donate for a victimized shrimp or fish than a calf (and many of my non-EA/non-utilitarian friends often cut out beef rather than chicken in their attempts to do better out of a stated respect for the life of a cow).
Is there perhaps more solid evidence or further investigation that may occur about the effect of species on total dollars donated?