On the Desiderata for Online Altruism

Online donation platforms help equalize access to opportunity and funding in cases where inequalities exist. In the context of public school education in the United States, for instance, financial inequalities have been shown to be reflected in the educational system, since schools are primarily funded through local property taxes. In response, private charitable donation platforms such as DonorsChoose.org have emerged seeking to alleviate systemic inequalities. Yet, the question remains of how effective these platforms are in redressing existing funding inequalities across school districts. Our analysis of donation data from DonorsChoose shows that such platforms may in fact be ineffective in mitigating existing inequalities or may even exacerbate them. In this paper, we explore how online educational charities could direct more funding towards more impoverished schools without compromising their donors' freedom of choice with respect to donation targets. Seeking to answer this question, we draw on the line of work on choice architectures in behavioral economics and pose a novel research question on the impact of interface design on equity in socio-technical systems. Through controlled experiments, we demonstrate how simple interface design interventions - such as modifying default rankings or displaying additional information about schools - might lead to changes in donation distributions helping platforms direct more funding towards schools in need. Going beyond online educational charities, we hope that our work will bring attention to the role of interface design nudges in the social requirements of online altruism.

[1]  C. Sunstein,et al.  Misconceptions About Nudges , 2017 .

[2]  Jonathan Meer,et al.  Does Fundraising Create New Giving? , 2016 .

[3]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms , 2020, WWW.

[4]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Crowdfunding support tools: predicting success & failure , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[5]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking , 2019, NeurIPS.

[6]  Dean S. Karlan,et al.  Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment , 2006 .

[7]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Exploring or Exploiting? Social and Ethical Implications of Autonomous Experimentation in AI , 2016 .

[8]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Online Controlled Experiments and A/B Testing , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[10]  Jonathan Robinson,et al.  Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya , 2009 .

[11]  Thanh Tran,et al.  How to Succeed in Crowdfunding: a Long-Term Study in Kickstarter , 2016, ArXiv.

[12]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings , 2018, SIGIR.

[13]  I. Robeyns Please Scroll down for Article Journal of Human Development the Capability Approach: a Theoretical Survey the Capability Approach: a Theoretical Survey , 2022 .

[14]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[15]  R. Thaler,et al.  Choice Architecture and Retirement Saving Plans , 2007 .

[16]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Inferring the impacts of social media on crowdfunding , 2014, WSDM.

[17]  Vincent Etter,et al.  Launch hard or go home!: predicting the success of kickstarter campaigns , 2013, COSN '13.

[18]  Matthew Smith,et al.  Using personal examples to improve risk communication for security & privacy decisions , 2014, CHI.

[19]  Richard H. Thaler,et al.  Chapter 14. Choice Architecture and Retirement Saving Plans , 2013 .

[20]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  The Condition of education , 1975 .

[21]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  The language that gets people to give: phrases that predict success on kickstarter , 2014, CSCW.

[22]  Kori Inkpen Quinn,et al.  What You See Is What You Get? The Impact of Representation Criteria on Human Bias in Hiring , 2019, HCOMP.

[23]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Donor Retention in Online Crowdfunding Communities: A Case Study of DonorsChoose.org , 2015, WWW.

[24]  C. Sunstein Nudging and Choice Architecture: Ethical Considerations , 2015 .

[25]  Adam Swift,et al.  Equality, Priority, and Positional Goods* , 2006, Ethics.

[26]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Equality of Voice: Towards Fair Representation in Crowdsourced Top-K Recommendations , 2018, FAT.

[27]  Christian Coons,et al.  Manipulation: Theory and Practice , 2014 .

[28]  Christina Gravert,et al.  Now or never! The effect of deadlines on charitable giving: Evidence from two natural field experiments , 2017 .

[29]  Tamara Bucher,et al.  Nudging product choices: The effect of position change on snack bar choice , 2015 .

[30]  J. Morsink,et al.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent , 1999 .

[31]  Julien Lafortune,et al.  School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement , 2016 .

[32]  Chris Arney Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2015 .

[33]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Trustworthy online controlled experiments: five puzzling outcomes explained , 2012, KDD.

[34]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Warning: You are about to be Nudged , 2014, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[35]  Noah Castelo,et al.  Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[36]  Maria Klara Wolters,et al.  Name that tune: musicons as reminders in the home , 2011, CHI.

[37]  N. McGlynn Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[38]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Two-Sided Fairness for Repeated Matchings in Two-Sided Markets: A Case Study of a Ride-Hailing Platform , 2019, KDD.

[39]  Rick Wash,et al.  The Rich Get Richer? Limited Learning in Charitable Giving on donorschoose.org , 2017, ICWSM.

[40]  James Edwards,et al.  NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY SUGGESTIONS WORK IN CHARITABLE FUNDRAISING: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL FIELD EXPERIMENT , 2013 .

[41]  Adam Swift,et al.  How Not to be a Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent , 2003 .

[42]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture , 2012 .

[43]  L. Winner DO ARTIFACTS HAVE (cid:1) POLITICS? , 2022 .

[44]  Genevieve Siegel-Hawley,et al.  Educational Gerrymandering? Race and Attendance Boundaries in a Demographically Changing Suburb , 2013 .

[45]  William S. Reece,et al.  Charitable Contributions: New Evidence on Household Behavior , 1979 .

[46]  Carlos Castillo,et al.  Reducing Disparate Exposure in Ranking: A Learning To Rank Approach , 2018, WWW.

[47]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[48]  Claudia Persico,et al.  The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms , 2015 .

[49]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  The science of giving : experimental approaches to the study of charity , 2011 .

[50]  J. Meer Effects of the Price of Charitable Giving: Evidence from an Online Crowdfunding Platform , 2013 .

[51]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Fairness through awareness , 2011, ITCS '12.

[52]  Amy Voida,et al.  Legitimacy Work: Invisible Work in Philanthropic Crowdfunding , 2016, CHI.

[53]  T. Wilkinson,et al.  Nudging and Manipulation , 2013 .

[54]  M. Cucchiara,et al.  NEPC Review: Hidden Money: The Outsized Role of Parent Contributions in School Finance , 2017 .

[55]  Brian D. Davison,et al.  Estimating ad group performance in sponsored search , 2014, WSDM.

[56]  Beth Breeze,et al.  How donors choose charities: the role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions , 2013 .

[57]  N. Nachar The Mann ‐ Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution , 2007 .

[58]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  On the Impact of Choice Architectures on Inequality in Online Donation Platforms , 2019, WWW.

[59]  Jonathan Meer,et al.  A Field Experiment on Directed Giving at a Public University , 2014 .

[60]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Nudges that fail , 2017, Behavioural Public Policy.

[61]  M. P. Richards,et al.  The Gerrymandering of School Attendance Zones and the Segregation of Public Schools , 2014 .

[62]  Natasha Dow Schll Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas , 2012 .

[63]  Chau-kiu Cheung,et al.  Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization , 2000 .

[64]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Incremental Fairness in Two-Sided Market Platforms: On Smoothly Updating Recommendations , 2019, AAAI 2020.

[65]  J. Radford,et al.  The Emergence of Gender Inequality in a Crowdfunding Market: An Experimental Test of Gender System Theory , 2016 .

[66]  David Reinstein,et al.  Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment , 2011, Theory and Decision.

[67]  Jonathan Meer,et al.  Social Distance and Quality Ratings in Charity Choice , 2014 .

[68]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[69]  Jasmine Jones,et al.  Pinteresce: Exploring Reminiscence as an Incentive to Digital Reciprocity for Older Adults , 2015, CSCW Companion.

[70]  Jacob Solomon,et al.  Don't Wait!: How Timing Affects Coordination of Crowdfunding Donations , 2015, CSCW.

[71]  Simona Botti,et al.  The Charity Beauty Premium: Satisfying Donors’ “Want” versus “Should” Desires , 2017 .

[72]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[73]  Jacob Solomon,et al.  Coordinating donors on crowdfunding websites , 2014, CSCW.

[74]  Richard Bellamy,et al.  The morality of freedom , 1988 .