What works to increase charitable donations? A meta-review with meta-meta-analysis

Many charities rely on donations to support their work addressing some of the world’s most pressing problems. We conducted a meta-review to determine what interventions work to increase charitable donations. We found 21 systematic reviews incorporating 1339 primary studies and over 2,139,938 participants. Our meta-meta-analysis estimated the average effect of an intervention on charitable donation size and incidence: r = 0.08 (95% CI [0.03, 0.12]). Due to limitations in the included systematic reviews, we are not certain this estimate reflects the true overall effect size. The most robust evidence found suggests charities could increase donations by (1) emphasising individual beneficiaries, (2) increasing the visibility of donations, (3) describing the impact of the donation, and (4) enacting or promoting tax-deductibility of the charity. We make recommendations for improving primary research and reviews about charitable donations, and how to apply the meta-review findings to increase charitable donations

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP

Research co-design in health: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design - the meaningful involvement of end-users in research - may help address this research waste. This rapid review addressed three related questions: 1. What research co-design processes exist in health settings? 2. What do these research co-design processes involve? 3. What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design processes? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. METHODS Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid review approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design processes identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however qualitative exploration has described positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, included training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. CONCLUSIONS Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved, and better evaluation

Research co-design in health: an overview of reviews

This OSF project records the protocol, manuscript and supplementary material for a rapid systematic review of health research co-design: the meaningful involvement of research users during the study planning phase. It has been estimated that up to 85% of research funding is wasted. Misalignment between researchers, clinicians and patients contributes to this waste – one study found that less than 3% (9/334) of studies examined priorities of researchers against patients and clinicians. Current funding schemes do not provide sufficient incentives (or insights) for researchers to be able to consult with clinicians or patients. Although this is widely acknowledged, the processes involved in successful co-design are poorly understood - that is, researchers, clinicians and patients don’t know how to ‘do’ research collaboration. Better understanding how to align research opportunities between clients and researchers may help in improving research and patient outcomes

The dual-pathway model of collective action: Impacts of types of collective action and social identity

In three experiments, we manipulated procedural fairness (Experiment 1) and group-based anger and group efficacy (Experiments 2 and 3) to investigate the independent pathways of anger and efficacy for collective action in China. In Experiment 3 we also examined pathways to “soft” (low-cost) and “hard” (high-cost) collective action. Our results supported the dual-pathway model of collective action: group-based anger and perceived group efficacy independently predicted collective action intentions to protest against increased school fees and unhygienic cafeteria conditions for Chinese university students. Group-based anger predicted soft collective action intentions; both anger and efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. Identification with the disadvantaged group was found to moderate the problem-focused coping pathway for hard collective action intentions. For high but not low identifiers, manipulated group efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. We discuss our findings with specific reference to collective action research in China

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Outsiders' Responses to an External Group Conflict: Implications for Identification, Anger, and Collective Action

Members of groups in conflict may take collective action: actions to improve conditions for their group as a whole. The psychological antecedents of collective action for groups that are party to conflict and inequality are well-established. Comparatively little is known about how uninvolved outsiders respond to an external intergroup conflict. We investigate how personal ideological orientations of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) shape outsiders’ willingness to take collective action in support of groups engaged in external conflict. In Study 1, US residents read about conflicts between disadvantaged citizens and an advantaged government in Greece and Russia. In Study 2, US residents read about a similar conflict in a fictional country, Silaria. Path analyses revealed that SDO and RWA shaped psychological appraisals of the conflict contexts, which predicted intentions to take collective action on behalf of either group. SDO and RWA were positively associated with advantaged group identification and anger at a disadvantaged group, and negatively associated with disadvantaged group identification and anger at an advantaged group. Group identification and anger predicted subsequent collective action intentions on behalf of either group. The sensitivity of outsiders’ appraisals to ideological orientations suggests strategies for both advantaged and disadvantaged groups to recruit outsiders as allies in group conflict