Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.
Philipp Schoenegger; Miguel Costa-Gomes · 2022 · PLoS ONE
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract
Charities differ, among other things, alongside the likelihood that their interventions succeed and produce the desired outcomes and alongside the extent that such likelihood can even be articulated numerically. In this paper, we investigate what best explains charitable giving behaviour regarding charities that have interventions that will succeed with a quantifiable and high probability (sure-thing charities) and charities that have interventions that only have a small and hard to quantify probability of bringing about the desired end (probabilistic charities). We study individual difference
Abstract by Philipp Schoenegger; Miguel Costa-Gomes, PLoS ONE (2022) — licensed CC BY 4.0.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
A Randomized Trial of Intraarterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Negative / Null Result ReportDuodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile
Negative / Null Result ReportStenting versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid-Artery Stenosis
Negative / Null Result ReportEffects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Replication FailureA Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
Negative / Null Result ReportSpironolactone for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: DOAJ · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0273971