Nelson, M.; Batavia, C. 2019. Influences on charitable giving for conservation: Online survey data of 1,331 respondents across the US, August 2017 Long-Term Ecological Research Andrews Forest LTER Site. [Database]. Available: https://andrewsforest-stage.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/fsdb-data-catalog/SS007 Accessed 2026-05-10.

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.

Temporal coverage: 2017-08-18 to 2017-08-25

Geographic coverage: N/A

Bounds: W N/A, E N/A, N N/A, S N/A

• 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.

Title: Long-Term Ecological Research

• Michael P. Nelson
  Role: Principal Investigator
  Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331
  Phone: 541-737-9221
  Email: mpnelson@oregonstate.edu
  URL: http://www.michaelpnelson.com
• Julia A. Jones
  Role: Other Researcher
  Oregon State University;Department of Geosciences; Wilkinson Hall 104, Corvallis, OR, 97331-5506, USA
  Phone: (541) 737-1224
  Email: Julia.Jones@oregonstate.edu, geojulia@comcast.net
  URL: http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/jones/
• Hannah Gosnell
  Role: Other Researcher
  Geosciences;Oregon State University;260 Wilkinson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331-5506, USA
  Phone: 541-737-1222
  Email: gosnellh@geo.oregonstate.edu
  URL: http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/gosnell/
• Jeremy T. Bruskotter
  Role: Other Researcher
  Email: Bruskotter.9@osu.edu
• John A. Vucetich
  Role: Other Researcher
  Email: javuceti@mtu.edu
• Michael P. Nelson
  Role: Creator
  Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331
  Phone: 541-737-9221
  Email: mpnelson@oregonstate.edu
  URL: http://www.michaelpnelson.com
• Chelsea Batavia
  Role: Creator
  Email: Chelsea.Batavia@oregonstate.edu, ckb523@gmail.com

• Information Manager
  Andrews Forest LTER Program, US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR, 97331
  Email: hjaweb@fsl.orst.edu
  URL: http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/

• Andrews Forest LTER Site
  Role: Publisher
  Forest Ecosystems and Society Department in Forestry, Oregon State University, 201K Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331-5752
  Phone: (541) 737-8480
  Email: lterweb@fsl.orst.edu
  URL: http://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/

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. 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. Field Methods - SS007

Purpose: 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.

Method Steps

Sampling

No software entries listed in this EML file.

• LTER controlled vocabulary: conservation (theme)
• Andrews Experimental Forest site thesaurus: attitudes and perceptions (theme), environmental ethics (theme), public assessments (theme), public values (theme)

No taxonomic hierarchy listed in this EML file.

No related dataset codes found in the EML text fields.

No publication citations found in this EML file.

• Survey Instrument
  survey questionnaire and labels linking questions to variable codes
  URL: https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/data/studies/ss007/Survey_Instrument.pdf

Data Use Agreement:

The re-use of scientific data has the potential to greatly increase communication, collaboration and synthesis within and among disciplines, and thus is fostered, supported and encouraged. This Data Set is released under the Creative Commons license CC BY "Attribution" (see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Creative Commons license CC BY - Attribution is a license that allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work (even commercially), as long as you are credited for the original creation. This license accommodates maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

It is considered professional conduct and an ethical obligation to acknowledge the work of other scientists. The Data User is asked to provide attribution of the original work if this data package is shared in whole or by individual parts or used in the derivation of other products. A recommended citation is provided for each Data Set in the Andrews LTER data catalog (see: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/catalog/datacatalog.aspx). A generic citation is also provided for this Data Set on the website https://portal.edirepository.org in the summary metadata page. Data Users are thus strongly encouraged to consider consultation, collaboration and/or co-authorship with the Data Set Creator.

While substantial efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of data and associated documentation, complete accuracy of data sets cannot be guaranteed and all data are made available "as is." The Data User should be aware, however, that data are updated periodically and it is the responsibility of the Data User to check for new versions of the data. The data authors and the repository where these data were obtained shall not be liable for damages resulting from any use or misinterpretation of the data.

General acknowledgement: Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. None. Data are anonymized and study has been approved by Oregon State University’s Institutional Review Board (Study ID 8136)

License: N/A

Maintenance update frequency: notPlanned

Description

• An update history is logged and maintained with each new version of every dataset.

Change History

• Version1 (2016-12-08)
  Study code and preliminary metadata established
• Version3 (2019-04-11)
  Imported dataset, ran QC and uploaded to SQL.