2023 - PSYC3052 Comparing charities

	A	B	C	D	E	G	H	I
1	Hypothesis #	Effect name	Group	Prediction	Cohen's d	Absolute Effect Size	Supported?

2	7b	Risk - 5 save 100% vs. 500 save 1%	London	Risk aversion (<50)	-2.24	2.24	Yes
3	7a	Risk - 5 save 100% vs. 5000 save 0.1%	London	Risk aversion (<50)	-1.78	1.78	Yes
4	7c	Risk - 5 save 100% vs. 50 save 10%	London, Rome	Risk aversion (<50)	-1.72	1.72	Yes
5	49	Information sharing	Tokyo, Manila and Rome	Information sharing > No information sharing (<50)	-1.66	1.66	Yes
6	6a	Certainty - 10 save 100% vs 20 save 50%	Helsinki, Madrid	Risk aversion (<50)	-1.61	1.61	Yes
7	46	Reputation	Malé, Manila	Reputation > Lower reputation (<50)	-1.59	1.59	Yes
8	6c	Certainty - 1 save 100% vs. 10 save 10%	Rome, Seoul	Risk aversion (<50)	-1.51	1.51	Yes
9	18	Neglectedness	Seoul, Hanoi, Vienna, Helsinki	Neglectedness > Common (>50)	1.44	1.44	Yes
10	60	Personal experience	London, Oslo, Vienna, Tokyo	Personal experience > No personal experience (<50)	-1.30	1.30	Yes
11	70	Temporal proximity	Manila, Helsinki, Oslo, Rome	Proximate > Distant (<50)	-1.28	1.28	Yes
12	52	Reputation 2	Manila	Advertisements > No advertisements (<50)	-1.24	1.24	Yes
13	41	Donation amount	Madrid	10x > X (>50)	-1.14	1.14	No	People prefer less funded charities
14	90	Membership (ingroup)	Madrid	Member > Not a member (<50)	-1.06	1.06	Yes
15	4b	Singularity - 1 boy vs 3 children	Singapore	People donate more to the 1 boy compared to 3 children (<50)	1.06	1.06	No	(ignore, see alternative test) Weaker support for IVE than expected. People take numbers into account, but allocation per person for 3 children vs 1 < 2 children vs 1.
16	1a	Framing positive	Bangkok, Vienna, Madrid, Oslo	tendency towards risk aversion (<50).	-1.04	1.04	Yes
17	2b	Effort - 10 mile	Bangkok, Oslo, Rome	People prefer donations without additional obligations over donations attending highly effortful events.	0.98	0.98	No	People prefer less effort
18	4b	Singularity - 1 girl vs 3 children		People donate more to the 1 boy compared to 3 children (<50)	0.98	0.98	No	(ignore, see alternative test) Weaker support for IVE than expected. People take numbers into account, but allocation per person for 3 children vs 1 < 2 children vs 1.
19	32	Local endorsement		Local endorsement > No endorsement (<50)	-0.98	0.98	Yes
20	6d	Certainty - 75 save 100% vs. 100 save 80%		Risk aversion (<50)	-0.95	0.95	Yes
21	28	Personal relevance: Loved ones	London, Oslo, Vienna	Personal relevance > No relevance (<50)	-0.95	0.95	Yes
22	29	Personal relevance: Own risk		Personal relevance > No relevance (<50)	-0.91	0.91	Yes
23	2c	Effort - 1 mile	Bangkok, Oslo, Rome	People prefer donations without additional obligations over donations attending mildly effortful events	0.90	0.90	No	People prefer less effort
24	5a	10 animals vs 10 children	Paris, Vienna, Hanoi	People prefer 10 children over 10 animals (>50)	0.87	0.87	Yes
25	3b	Children vs animals	Hanoi, Seoul	Children > animals (<50)	-0.87	0.87	Yes
26	4a	Singularity - 1 boy vs 2 children	London	People donate more to the 1 boy compared to 2 children (<50)	0.82	0.82	No	(ignore) Weaker support for IVE than expected. People take numbers into account, but allocation per person for 3 children vs 1 < 2 children vs 1.
27	40	Other donations	Oslo	1000 > 100 (<50)	0.82	0.82	Yes
28	76	Designation	Seoul	Designated > Not designated (<50)	-0.79	0.79	Yes
29	73	Level of sharing		High sharing > Low sharing (<50)	-0.79	0.79	Yes
30	23	Food vs textbooks	Hanoi	Food > textbooks (<50)	-0.79	0.79	Yes
31	71	Matching vs refund	Rome	Matching > refund (<50)	-0.79	0.79	Yes
32	54	Matching	Manila	Attention > Less attention (<50)	-0.78	0.78	Yes
33	82	Local US community vs. Africa	Tokyo, Vienna, Singapore, Oslo	Ingroup > Outgroup (<50)	-0.78	0.78	Yes
34	74	Side effects		No side-effects > Side-effect (>50)	0.76	0.76	Yes
35	69	Familiarity 2	Rome	Familiar > Less familiar (<50)	0.75	0.75	No	People prefer the less familiar with fewer donations
36	15	Information/Updates	Bangkok, London, Rome, Tokyo	With information updates > without updates (<50)	-0.72	0.72	Yes
37	59	Religious affiliation	Madrid, Oslo	Religious affiliation > No religious affiliation (<50)	0.71	0.71	No	People prefer religious affiliation (might be a US thing)
38	12	Common in region		Common in region > less common in region (<50)	-0.70	0.70	Yes
39	20	Framing	Hanoi, Oslo	Negative > Positive (>50)	-0.65	0.65	Yes	People prefere positive message framing
40	50	Share success stories		Shares success stories > No sharing success stories (<50)	-0.64	0.64	Yes
41	85	Based in US vs. foreign	Tokyo	Ingroup > Outgroup (>50)	0.62	0.62	Yes
42	63	Operational		Operational > Not yet operational (<50)	-0.62	0.62	Yes
43	62	Local government funding	Oslo	Local government funding > No local government funding (>50)	0.62	0.62	Yes
44	2a	Effort - picnic	Bangkok, Paris, Rome	People prefer donations without additional obligations over donations attending relaxing events.	0.61	0.61	No	People prefer less effort
45	36	Shared beliefs 1	Madrid, Paris, Malé	Shared beliefs > No info (<50)	-0.61	0.61	Yes
46	27	US vs Africa	Helsinki, London	Ingroup > Outgroup (<50)	-0.59	0.59	Yes
47	66	US region vs. not in region		Proximate > Distant (<50)	-0.58	0.58	Yes
48	81	Diversifaction: Single vs multiple treatments		Multiple treatments (diversification) > Single treatment (>50)	0.57	0.57	Yes
49	5a	10 animals vs 1 child	Paris, Vienna	People prefer 1 child over 10 animals (>50)	0.56	0.56	Yes
50	51	Norms 2	Manila, Malé, Olso, London	Normative > No info (<50)	-0.54	0.54	Yes
51	19	Gender	Hanoi	Females > Males (<50)	-0.53	0.53	Yes
52	45	Donor background: Lower class		Lower class = No info (50; null)	-0.52	0.52		Null hypothesis - found support for lower class over no info
53	64	Preventive vs Remedy	Oslo	Remedy > Preventive (>50)	-0.51	0.51	No	People prefer preventive
54	11	Tax deduction	Helsinki, Bangkok and Oslo	qualifies for tax deduction > does not qualify for tax deduction (>50)	0.51	0.51	Yes
55	79	Giving multiplier	Singapore	Giving multiplier with matching > Regular (>50)	-0.50	0.50	No	People prefer their own. Should be rephrased to compared against 0
56	87	Sharing on each donation vs aggregate		Sharing on each donation > aggregate (<50)	-0.48	0.48	Yes
57	6b	Certainty - 10 save 100% vs. 20 save 80%	Oslo	Risk aversion (<50)	-0.46	0.46	Yes
58	35	Charity age	Madrid	Older > Newer (>50)	0.45	0.45	Yes
59	44	Donor background: Wealthy	Malé	Wealthy = No info (50; null)	0.44	0.44		Null hypothesis - found support for wealthy over no info
60	83	Infrastructures vs direct unconditional cash transfers		Infrastructures > direct unconditional cash transfers (<50)	-0.43	0.43	Yes
61	16	Well established vs New		Well established > Latest development (>50) H16b: Well established < Latest development (<50)	0.42	0.42	Yes
62	77	Sharing on social media	Manila, Seoul	Sharing > Not sharing (<50)	-0.42	0.42	Yes
63	13	Norms	Bangkok	80% in city > 20% in city (<50)	0.41	0.41	No	People prefer the less familiar with fewer donations
64	1b	Framing negative	Tokyo, Oslo	In negative framing, people show a tendency towards risk seeking	-0.41	0.41	No	(see combined with positive, supported in that comparison)
65	33	Rare vs frequent	London, Vienna, Rome	Rare < Frequent (>50)	0.37	0.37	Yes
66	21	Recency	Hanoi	Recency > Unspecified (>50)	0.36	0.36	Yes
67	5a	100 animal vs 1 child	Paris and Vienna	People prefer 1 child over 100 animals (>50)	0.36	0.36	Yes
68	22	Direct cash transfer vs supplies	Hanoi	Supplies > Direct cash transfer (>50)	0.35	0.35	Yes
69	24	Promotion	Hanoi	No promotion > Promotion (<50)	-0.34	0.34	Yes
70	55	Attention		Attention > Less attention (<50)	0.34	0.34	No	People prefer the less familiar with fewer donations
71	37	Shared beliefs 2		No info > No shared beliefs (>50)	0.31	0.31	No	Higher than p = .001
72	3a	All children vs orphans		People prefer to donate to orphans over donating to all children.	-0.31	0.31	No	People prefer to all children
73	17	Optimism		Optimistic > Pessimistic (>50)	0.29	0.29	No	Higher than p = .001
74	58	Recipient details	Oslo	Recipient details > No recipient details (<50)	-0.29	0.29	No	Higher than p = .001
75	78	Friends donated	Seoul, Hanoi, Malé, Vienna	Friends donated > No info (<50)	-0.29	0.29	No	Higher than p = .001
76	38	Direct vs indirect cash transfers	Hanoi	Indirect > Direct (>50)	-0.29	0.29	No	People prefer direct not through mediator
77	68	Train vs planes with offsets	Rome	Train > Planes offsets (<50)	-0.29	0.29	No	Higher than p = .001
78	67	Minorities vs all		All > Minorities (>50)	0.29	0.29	No	Higher than p = .002
79	26	Proportion 1 Refugee camp	Hanoi, London, Madrid	High proportion (Smaller camp) > Low proportion (Larger camp) (<50)	-0.27	0.27	No	Higher than p = .003
80	48	Refund bonuses	Malé	Refund bonuses > Regular refund (<50)	-0.24	0.24	No	Higher than p = .004
81	88	Proportion 2: Specific communities	Tokyo and Vienna	High proportion (Smaller camp) > Low proportion (Larger camp) (<50)	-0.24	0.24	No	Higher than p = .005
82	47	Personal case studies vs evidence	Malé, Seoul, Tokyo, Helsinki, Paris	Personal case studies > evidence (<50)	0.22	0.22	No	Higher than p = .006
83	5b	1 animal vs 1000 trees	Paris and Vienna	People prefer 1 animal over 1000 trees	0.22	0.22	No	Higher than p = .007
84	86	Experts vs RCTs		Experts > RCTs (<50)	0.21	0.21	No	Higher than p = .008
85	53	Advertisements	Manila	Matching > No matching (<50)	0.21	0.21	No	Higher than p = .009
86	65	Lottery vs first come		Lottery > First come (<50)	0.21	0.21	No	Higher than p = .010
87	42	Celebrity endorsement	Malé and Oslo	Celebrity endorsement > No celebrity endorsement (<50)	0.21	0.21	No	Higher than p = .011
88	39	Single vs multiple causes	Madrid	multiple > single causes (>50)	0.20	0.20	No	Higher than p = .012
89	57	Recipient effort	Manila	Recipient details > No recipient details (<50)	-0.19	0.19	No	Higher than p = .013
90	56	Planting trees vs. Supporting local communities	Manila	Supporting local communities > Planting trees	0.17	0.17	No	Higher than p = .014
91	89	Short vs long term		Long term > Short term (>50)	-0.17	0.17	No	Higher than p = .015
92	30	Regular media/Social media	London, Madrid	Regular media > Social media (>50)	0.12	0.12	No	Higher than p = .016
93	80	Recipients' mood presentation	Hanoi	Happy and joyful > Sad and miserable (<50) (more relatedness) H80b: Happy and joyful < Sad and miserable (>50) (more empathy)	-0.11	0.11	No	Higher than p = .017
94	34	Familiarity	Madrid, Oslo, Toyko, Vienna	Familiar < Less familiar (<50)	-0.11	0.11	No	Higher than p = .018
95	75	Sharing previous donors	Rome	No sharing > Sharing (>50) (People prefer anonymity) H75b: Sharing > No sharing (<50) (People prefer transparency)	-0.11	0.11	No	Higher than p = .019
96	43	Thank you notes	Male, Oslo	Thank you notes > No thank you notes (<50)	-0.10	0.10	No	Higher than p = .020
97	14	Preventive vs Treatment	Bangkok	Treatment > Preventive (<50)	0.09	0.09	No	Higher than p = .021
98	4a	Singularity - 1 girl vs 2 children		People donate more to the 1 girl compared to 2 children (<50)	-0.08	0.08	No	Higher than p = .022
99	31	Immediate relief vs root causes	London, Rome, Singapore, Seoul, Madrid, Oslo	Immediate relief > Root causes (<50)	0.07	0.07	No	Higher than p = .023
100	72	Execution time	Rome	Sooner > Later (<50)	-0.06	0.06	No	Higher than p = .024