This dataset records survey data collected from an online panel of 1,331 anonymous, nationwide U.S respondents. Data collection was both initiated and completed in August 2017. Survey data is of two major types. The first type, information about respondents, includes (1) select background and demographic information; (2) a brief version of a social desirability scale, measured to test and control for potential bias related to socially desirable responding; and (3) a scale developed to measure moral inclusivity, conceptualized as the breadth of an individual’s moral community (i.e., to what extent do different types of entities “count,” in a moral sense). The second type of data records information about an experimental message manipulation featured in the survey. The dataset includes one variable indicating which of seven manipulated textual messages each respondent viewed, along with several variables used as metrics of response to the messages, including (1) attitudes toward the message; (2) hypothetical willingness to donate for the cause promoted in the message; (3) perceived moral salience of the message (i.e., the extent to which it was perceived as a matter of moral concern); (4) manipulation checks, to test whether the manipulated elements of the messages were perceived as intended, and (5) a donation set-up, in which individuals were given the option to donate between $0 and $5 for a conservation organization, from an incentive fee provided by the researchers.
Chelsea Batavia, Hannah Gosnell, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, John A. Vucetich, Julia A. Jones, Michael P. Nelson
The first and primary objective of this study was to investigate whether people report stronger support for the cause of conservation (as measured by attitudes, hypothetical donations, and donations) when they are approached with an outreach message suggesting nature conservation is good for humans; good for nonhumans; or good for both humans and nonhumans. Data were collected to inform a current debate in the conservation community about ethical motivations for conservation and effective strategies for winning social support. A secondary objective was to test whether commonly observed and politically conditioned patterns of response to messages highlighting different clusters of moral foundations (individualizing or binding; see Methods) are also observed in the context of persuasive communications for conservation. This more theoretical objective served practical purposes as well, by controlling for a message variable (moral foundation) that may have otherwise confounded results related to objective one.