Search

When evaluating a charity by itself, people tend to overweight overhead costs inrelation to cost-effectiveness. However, when evaluating charities side by side,they base their donations on cost-effectiveness. I conducted a replication andextension of Caviola et al. (2014; Study 1) using a 3 (HighOverhead/Effectiveness, Low Overhead/Effectiveness, Both) x 2 (Humans, Animals)between-subjects design. I found that the overhead ratio is an easier attributeto evaluate than cost-effectiveness in separate evaluation, and, in jointevaluation, people allocate donations based on cost-effectiveness. This effectwas observed for human charities, and to a lesser extent, for animalcharities.

Summary

The evidence for preference biases is very often flawed, incomplete, or misinterpreted. For example, inconsistent rates of time discount are largely eliminated when considered relative to the individual’s perception of time. Preference reversals in real time from patient to impatient behavior occur only in a minority of cases. Time inconsistency, when it occurs, need not be associated with actual harms to decision-makers. Evidence for the existence of endowment effects is problematic. Gaps between willingness to pay and willingness to accept have no normative significance. The evidence for impact bias is confused and weak, and to the extent that it occurs, its function has eluded most analysts. In addition to these concerns, we find that the preferences typically treated as normatively superior by behavioral paternalists are often implicated by biases as well.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

2 results

Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animalcharities?

4 - Preference Biases

Summary

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

2 results

Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animalcharities?

4 - Preference Biases

Summary