Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations (#258)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleNoam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson. Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations. (2016, September 24). Retrieved 18:52, March 24, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjU4
MLA Style"Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations" Noam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson. 24 Sep 2016 15:32 24 Mar 2017, 18:52 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjU4>
MHRA Style'Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations', Noam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson, , 24 September 2016 15:32 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjU4> [accessed 24 March 2017]
Chicago Style"Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations", Noam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjU4 (accessed March 24, 2017)
CBE/CSE StylePerceived self-efficacy & charitable donations [Internet]. Noam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson; 2016 Sep 24, 15:32 [cited 2017 Mar 24]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjU4
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Sharma, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2016). Saving the masses: The impact of perceived efficacy on charitable giving to single vs. multiple beneficiaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 45-54.|
|Title||Perceived self-efficacy & charitable donations|
|If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.||Study 2|
|Link to PDF of Original Report||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Invoking perceived self-efficacy in appeals to solicit charitable donations leads to a greater willingness to donate to multiple, as opposed to single, beneficiaries.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Number of Subjects||385|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||154|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2016|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Noam Ziv-Crispel, Leif D. Nelson|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
The original authors generously provided their materials in an appendix, so we were able to run an identical version of the original study using a larger sample size. |
Operationalization of efficacy: TurkPrime workers read the following message either at the beginning (high efficacy salience condition) or at the end (low efficacy salience condition) of a solicitation for donations to a particular charity: "You can take steps to make a meaningful difference. Volunteers are the backbone of our organization, and we rely on our extensive and committed network of volunteers to carry out our important work."
They were then asked a series of questions, the key dependent measures being three questions regarding their willingness to donate to the charity in question.
NZC ran the study twice (the first time unknowingly not restricting the TurkPrime sample). Results will follow for both the restricted and unrestricted samples, respectively:
-Restricted sample (minimum 91% of approved completed HITs): The three donation measures (donating money, supplies, time) were combined to form a single measure of willingness to donate (a = 0.819).
After re-running the study with sample restrictions, we were unable to replicate the results of the original study. No difference in willingness to donate was found between the high efficacy condition (M = 4.66, SD = 1.70) and the low efficacy condition (M = 4.57, SD = 1.61), F(1,383) = .274, p = .60.
The three donation measures (donating money, supplies, time) were combined to form a single measure of willingness to donate (a = 0.839).
We were unable to replicate the results of the original study. No difference in willingness to donate was found between the high (M = 4.18, SD = 1.74) and the low (M = 3.91, SD = 1.90) efficacy condition, F(1,387) = 2.189, p = .14.
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|Difference in sample size, as mentioned above.|
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|NZC ran subjects and analyzed the data.|
|Location of Project||UC Berkeley Haas School of Business|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|Adults tested through internet|
The survey was administered on Amazon Mechanical Turk's TurkPrime.
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||No|
|Further Details of Results as pdf|
|Email of Original Investigator|
|I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.|
|TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking|