FLoRA Replication Atlas › Browse

The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?

Lucius Caviola, Nadira Faulmüller, Jim. A. C. Everett, Julian Savulescu, Guy Kahane

Judgment and Decision Making, 2014. DOI 10.1017/s1930297500006185

Has this study been replicated?

The atlas records 1 replication of this study. Recorded outcomes: 1 successful. The earliest on record is from 2022.

Replications

• Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animal charities?, Spiteri (2022). Judgment and Decision Making. Outcome recorded: successful. I found that the overhead ratio is an easier attribute to evaluate than cost-effectiveness in separate evaluation, and, in joint evaluation, people allocate donations based on cost-effectiveness. Outcome read from the abstract. View paper

Cite this record

Caviola, L., Faulmüller, N., Everett, Jim. A. C., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500006185

Other studies in the atlas

• The Drunk Utilitarian Revisited: Does Alcohol Really Increase Utilitarianism in Moral…
• Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments
• Out, Damned Spot: Can the "Macbeth Effect" Be Replicated?
• Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animal charities?
• Loss aversion (simply) does not materialize for smaller losses
• On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Failed replications · Successful replications · All browse pages