I am actively recruiting effective altruists to participate in an online survey mapping their psychological profiles. The survey should take no more than 90 minutes to complete and anyone who identifies as being in alignment with EA can participate. If you have the time, my team and I would greatly appreciate your participation! The survey pays $15 and the link can be found below.

Survey Link: https://albany.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8v31IDPQNq4sKBU

The Research Team:

  1. Kyle Fiore Law (Project Leader; PhD Candidate in Social Psychology; University at Albany, SUNY): https://www.kyleflaw.com/
  2. Brendan O’Connor (Associate Professor of Psychology; University at Albany, SUNY):
  3. Abigail Marsh (Professor of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Neuroscience; Georgetown University)
  4. Liane Young (Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Boston College)
  5. Stylianos Syropoulos (Postdoctoral Researcher; Boston College)
  6. Paige Amormino (Graduate Student; Georgetown University)
  7. Gordon Kraft-Todd (Postdoctoral Researcher; Boston College)

Warmly,

Kyle :)

25

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments20


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing, Kyle!

May I ask how you estimated the time to complete the survey? I gave up because I made very little progress in 40 min, but I might be unusually slow.

I think 15 $ is a minor incentive for 90 min, but I tried to complete the survey anyway because this type of work seems useful. However, my guess is that you would get way more responses if you did a smaller e.g. 15 min survey even it had no monetary incentive. I also wonder whether the responses would be more accurate, because 90 min is so much time that people may start to give inaccurate responses. Alternatively, assuming I am not unusually slow, people may give rushed responses in order to finish the survey in 90 min.

In general, I also felt like many questions were overly similar. I appreciate some of this may be needed for internal validity purposes, but I would say the trade-off as the survey stands is not great.

Sorry if my comments come across as harsh. Thanks for working towards contributing to a better world!

I just reposted your X/Twitter recruitment message, FWIW:

https://twitter.com/law_fiore/status/1706806416931987758 

Good luck! I might suggest doing a shorter follow-up survey in due course -- 90 minutes is a big time commitment for $15 payment!

Please I participated in the survey and $15 was sent to my email I tried to send the fund to my PayPal account and the transaction was cancelled. How can I claim my $15

Hi Gyang, how long did it take for you to get the pay?

Dear All,

I’m truly grateful for the valuable feedback and support received from the community. Below, I’ve provided some clarifications that I hope you’ll find useful.

To help ensure an accurate assessment of survey length, we timed the survey on the basis of median completion time derived from a pilot study with a general population sample (N=320). We’re aware of the concerns about respondent fatigue, which is why the pilot was crucial. It allowed us to examine the response quality and ensure the consistency and validity of our measures, aligning with well-established findings in relevant literature.

This survey marks our initial foray into this research area. As such, we opted for a comprehensive approach in selecting our measures. This approach enables us to explore numerous key variable relationships thoroughly, setting the stage for a more streamlined follow-up study.

Your participation, time and effort in helping us with this project are immensely appreciated. We are hopeful that the insights gained will significantly contribute to the development of more effective EA outreach strategies within the general population.

Warmly,

Kyle :)

Kyle - I just completed the survey yesterday. I did find it very long and grueling. I worry that you might get lower quality data in the last 1/2 of the survey, due to participant fatigue and frustration.

My suggestion -- speaking as a psych professor who's run many surveys over the last three decades -- is to develop a shorter survey (no more than 25 minutes) that focuses on your key empirical questions, and try to get a good large sample for that. 

Thank you, Geoffrey! I really appreciate your time and candid feedback. I will take this into careful consideration going forward. 

I've just spent about an hour on the survey, at which point I noticed the progress bar was at about 1/6th. This was at the start of four timed questions which required 2 minutes each, with each one having a few follow-up questions.

At this point there had been 7 or 8 of these timed questions, as well as at least two dozen pages of multiple-choice questions and a few 'brain-teasers'. I do not see how it is possible to complete this first 1/6th in under 45 minutes, seeing that the timed questions alone already take up 16 minutes.

I sincerely apologize for the length of the survey.

Others have mentioned the length of the survey, but I think it would also be useful for long surveys to use a survey provider that has a progress bar.

ETA: I now realise there is a progress bar, but I didn't register it because it was advancing so slowly. I rescind my initial implication that others have said adequately expressed the length of this survey...

Also a 101-point Likert scale seems asking us for overmuch precision :P

Also I'm on a 7-point Likert scale page where I can only click on the first five options (about how much thought I like my tasks to involve).

I resolved it by shrinking the browser window so it switched to dropdown menus, but some people might not think to do that.

This is very good to know. Thank you for sharing these insights!

I completed the survey hours ago, still yet to see any compensation though

Hello, i completed the survey 3 days agi and was asked to drop my email to facilitate payment. I haven't heard a feed back from you since

Hey Caleb,did you later receive the payment and how long did it take?

Hello Caleb,

Yes i did, i reached out to Kyle and it was sorted within 24 hours.

Hello, I participated in the survey and my study participation fund sent to PayPal was refunded back to Brenda O'Connor.

Kindly make my payment. Thanks 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
I donated my left kidney to a stranger on April 9, 2024, inspired by my dear friend @Quinn Dougherty (who was inspired by @Scott Alexander, who was inspired by @Dylan Matthews). By the time I woke up after surgery, it was on its way to San Francisco. When my recipient woke up later that same day, they felt better than when they went under. I'm going to talk about one complication and one consequence of my donation, but I want to be clear from the get: I would do it again in a heartbeat. Correction: Quinn actually donated in April 2023, before Scott’s donation. He wasn’t aware that Scott was planning to donate at the time. The original seed came from Dylan's Vox article, then conversations in the EA Corner Discord, and it's Josh Morrison who gets credit for ultimately helping him decide to donate. Thanks Quinn! I met Quinn at an EA picnic in Brooklyn and he was wearing a shirt that I remembered as saying "I donated my kidney to a stranger and I didn't even get this t-shirt." It actually said "and all I got was this t-shirt," which isn't as funny. I went home and immediately submitted a form on the National Kidney Registry website. The worst that could happen is I'd get some blood tests and find out I have elevated risk of kidney disease, for free.[1] I got through the blood tests and started actually thinking about whether to do this. I read a lot of arguments, against as well as for. The biggest risk factor for me seemed like the heightened risk of pre-eclampsia[2], but since I live in a developed country, this is not a huge deal. I am planning to have children. We'll just keep an eye on my blood pressure and medicate if necessary. The arguments against kidney donation seemed to center around this idea of preserving the sanctity or integrity of the human body: If you're going to pierce the sacred periderm of the skin, you should only do it to fix something in you. (That's a pretty good heuristic most of the time, but we make exceptions to give blood and get pier