Hallo, mein Name ist Jürgen Williams, ein in this presentition,
ich will given oper view of a study,
that's a recently did with louis from the American University of Washington DC.
On fall into it disclosure of organization of route and on profit organizations.
So what is actually voluntry this closure, let's see,
there are no profit organizations that face ecrisis,
like see a board member, still some money,
and it get leaked to the pressure something or a some employee is miss behaving that's the on a mission,
und der Turtworld country.
So one else is let's see, or so on is not following
the political procedures, or there in following briving or something.
That's of course a crisis situation and it definitely well turning to a big crisis,
when when external steakholders learn about this for example of doing us here about that the organization,
that the organization that your supporting is infolved in such practices,
they will stop doing eating.
Loose people's will start talking about it policy makers will maybe
define up some new roots for them or or retractor support,
also all of partner organizations, might decide not to collaborate,
So that's so when a crisis situation of curse,
and now the question is this organization can actually meet to decision to foluntry this clues,
the situation for example,
they know that something happened on a mission with an employeeur something.
And they can decide themselve, we going to be fairy open about its,
we going to foluntry this clues it,
and we going to tell the world, yes, this is what happened.
So we open about it and hopefully actually at can create,
that's they for giving this berufs as a ming the steakholders,
to can also to signal bit it,
that directually trying to do something about it,
that it want happen again anymore.
So and that's what we try to study,
this act of foluntry disclosing it this at actually
matter and to what extent
And there's already, there has already wint some of a
ready interesting that is on it. So there are several
studies working with secondary day, therefore example looking at animal reports.
And the analyze wetter in this animal reports something is written
about the crisis and ready with the open about it.
And then there also check wetter business related to let's
see less do nations or different kind of donations or less
supporter something. And there's also some experimental research,
which is also quite interesting, because the experimental research,
a focus is more on the direct reaction, let's
see stakeholder or potential donor, reads about this crisis,
but also reads that it's voll intry this closed or reads that it
actually comes from the organization itselvere not from a news people.
By doing it in experimental setting you can really testest immediate reaction.
Like, what is the first reaction of people or the
actually immediately for giving the organization? Because it was fun
intry this closed, or the even more disappoint that are something.
So that's something that can be analyses in experiments.
This also some research done where the time that mentione is
question like, what have the organization? Only gives,
only discloses it let's say,
like one of two monsoreven years after that the event to please,
or what when the really try to let's say still tonder as the say,
actually give the news, before anyone else can give it,
just do make sure, that you can still to debate,
a little bit.
And it's in that field or in this literate your stream
that we would like to contribute with the study.
So what is actually our high potters is? It's explicit
information about foluntry disclusure of raud, by num profit organization,
is a expected to mitagate the overall negative effect of the
raud on stakeholder and on nations intentions.
But this is mean actually if a stakeholder,
that's the are doing are reseason information,
that there was a crisis in the organization,
let's see tree board members,
they's too money for there to buy something personal,
Stakeholder learns this news that's the crisis and we can't expected
because of that news his trust in the organization his or here
willing ness to do need to the organization, might be reduced.
Now the question is if this information that you get also something about yet the organization is open about it,
the organization for luntary disclosed,
but this extra peace of information connectually middlegate is negative effect,
meaning like, let's say,
they would normally lose 50% of the donations,
but just the information that it was for luntary disclosed,
would it reduced to only, let's say 40% less of Donations.
So that's the question, we ask or self,
so we follow actually more the stream of the experiments that happened in this feel dold ready.
So we really want to test to direct reaction of stecologs,
we give that we will give them finiets and in the finiets this informations or given.
And we really ask them emilitely after like homuch,
would you still don't it? But we also try to do is,
of course, keep,
the information as constant aspossible meaning that so we take one crisis situation,
I actually we tast two crisis situations and to different experience
Or two different to different experimental settings. But actually with
this crisis is they like this extra small effects of vollentry disclusure. So we keep as much constant aspossible,
which is pre-recrisite for experience, of course,
in this experiment, we do not this time down mention,
yet so we as hume that people get all this information
at once and we do not very whether to get it quite early or quite lead,
or something that something, we do not do yet.
And another's important setting is let see the challenge to study acrisis,
of course, And so we it,
it has to be hypothetical or we compared with a real situation,
we could take a real organization and then talk about some crisis that Occurity,
but then we cannot control for the effect,
whether our part disziplins all ready new about it.
So we took a hypothetical gay,
that's what we decided in Organization that didn't really exist.
So we created this hypothetical setting,
where we told people like, let's see, you,
and that are you don't need that's about 100
Dollars last here. Now this happens,
what would you do this year? Hypothetical,
we think also helps a little bit for our particle or setting,
because we don't know,
if it we be a real organization
But it already new that particular organization and also
we don't want to give information about the crisis of hypothetical
crisis for a really organization that might damage their image just
for our research purpose is that's not okay for us. So that's the setting,
so what it we do we that actually tree online experience,
we did the first smaller one where we looked at a high sifarity crisis,
where we really give a description of tree board member steeling money and therefore the worse,
the left your organization,
we tested it again with a locifarity crisis reactually only just one employeee,
used some of the resources for personal game.
And then on the reviews, recommendations, we actually best
it it it again with the much bigger sample, we tested boot.
So out talk about it in a second,
just to make sure that we could find potential effective the world Aaron reality.
So the first to experiments were don't make qual tricks panels,
these two experiments where also a doing but it in a large data collection and the third one,
so where we does boot the high and the luciferity condition,
was don't with mechanical türk.
So what is our what our fairables,
debend and fairable is the willing this to do need.
So we really used people, let's see last year
you do need it 100 dollars for this organization,
how much which you do need this here.
So and the good really give an amount from Zero
to whatever
Dollars. What is are independent fairable,
we adactually five threement groups you see a group A is the blue one,
that's he its a first control group,
where in that group we only give the mission of the organizations,
so or organization was good earth love.
Now we only give the mission. So when people actually
the side based on the mission to give the same amount,
then we have something like, let's
see a default or like a Benchmark to start from,
that is what normally this organization would gets if
no crisis would a cure from this sample of respondence.
And then groupie is let's the a second control group,
where we give the mission of earthlove plus the overall crisis
situation, but Information jetzt on how it was disclosed.
So actually comparing group a with groupie,
gives this an insight in how that the crisis was for example,
if people are really, really disappoint its hearing about the cifia crisis,
I say the tree board members,
steeling money than we know actually that is what this the negative effect of this crisis.
But are research question is, can this negative effect be medicated?
So reduced completely or a peopartily reduced. So that's why
we have let's see group see, where we have again this mission.
We have the overall crisis and we just mention that
the crisis situation was fulentury this glows by the organization.
So there we can really by comparing group be and see we
can really see like the negative effect of the crisis,
maybe it's not that bad, if people also learned that the organization was open about it.
Group DNCL Group DNE actually tust the same, so in Group D,
we just addit a placible, so the situation,
it's also the mission of the organization, the overall crisis situation,
but that was this close by a news people,
just to test this message of disclosure, well,
it that has an effect,
but this don't really by an external partner.
And group eat then has all the information.
So possible because that is probably a realistic situation,
we really want to compare the different case is that kind of cure.
So the mission of the organization is given in eat the
overall crisis and then it it was disclosed by your news people,
but also for all entury, just by comparing the groups,
we can this test a little bit.
What is whether there is an deated this extra medicating effect?
And on the map you see, so it was in
the United States every dot, is a respondent.
This location is a proximited best on IP-Adresses
So this all the results, actually the black boards.
So this, I let's first start with the horrizontal access,
there in experiment trees or I only will report experiment three here.
You see the 9 situations, which is the basecase,
which was group a forboot, settings the same.
And then you have for low crisis situations,
no disclosure for interree disclosure, threat party disclosure,
and boots for luntury and tired party disclosure.
And then you have to same with for a high crisis situations.
So that is actually in the distribution of the donations that people would give.
And the black one is actually people giving again 100 Dollarshop,
because wie Tottem to Imagine, we told them to imagine,
that you give 100 last years.
And we see that actually that see in the basically
60% gives 100 Dollar again, some of them give even
more others give less. And what we see it that
of course in the low crisis situation, more people decided to give less.
So that is why this for boss from in the low
crisis category or are bit lower. And of course,
in the high crisis category, even it seeven more lower,
just more people decided to give less.
So that's a low bit about the distribution about the
decisions that people make from giving again one 100 giving more
or giving less
This is actually, this are the sing results,
but looking at the distributions, what we also see is,
it's again, that the same 9 groups,
but this time on the vertical access,
we see that the distributions change little bit,
so there's always this book around 100,
so some people stay with this ancry decision actually,
which you see that more people move to the left,
especially in the high
crisis situation. It's also a not mornal distributed.
This are than the confidence in their falls and what
we see and this is also, let's
you're mean results, can be dirived here, again,
we see the base case,
the everage
amount is again about
Dollars, die du sehst, like 4 Klubs auf der low-crisis-situation,
between den 4 Groups, das ist nicht die reale significant differenziert.
Und wir finden das Sehen für den High-Crisis,
es ist ein libit more viration, es gibt high-crisis,
die 4 Groups oder lower, dann die other Groups,
aber between den 4 Groups, der no real significant differenziert ist.
So, was ist das meanactually that what are people give
more or less mainly depends on the crisis situation,
and thisn't really depend on how it was disclosed?
So what is our mean implication or a mean finally,
at least from this experiment and how we condicted it follow-try disclosion,
ddisn't really matter, or doesn't really matter a lot,
because it's an experiment, and we know
how much sadistical power we have. So you can also
read it in the people
But actually, it could be that it matters,
but be on this larger samplesize, it only, it wouldn't only matter very marginally.
So actually the main thing is, if a crisis occurse,
that will harm the organization, I maybe just very marginally,
what are you voll intry disclusive or not might have an effect?
It least, we have to free not a little bit,
that's the direct effect, if the organization continues to talk,
has a whole we're governing strategy, that's something we didn't measure here,
that my be more elephens in the long to,
but on the short term, full intry disclusing,
at least in this experiment, disn't really matter.
From a theory perspective, what we did,
we compared all results with the other experiments and steadys that we're done,
I we realized that actually,
if you want to really exploren, is further,
it mix probably sense to make a destinction for time source and content of disclusure.
So in this experiment and an many other experiments and content
of this colossure and this experiments and an many other experiments
this not real test of the time dye mension, it's probably be further studies can really test
wetter disclusing it quite early in the process or quite lead,
but that has a next effect. The source,
so actually and our experiment to the source,
was the researchers and we just to told about ful intry
disclusure other studies have tested the difference between that see a press release and a news peopleople article,
but then also the content this, is fairited,
because nose people a articles or fearry often a lito the lito the lito o a presse release.
and actually we we we we discovered that this aree
t theree t thathathat a that acty dimensions that thathat
e a pree they can each can be
fave ementure ts t that se thato a pree a pree e
pre pre can be very itt and and we fered ed
ed and emplay e e e e e e pre e
ed ed and and prob e may eat mit migit
have might haved dit det we we we to at this
eamit e e e e e e e d d t we
t t we we we we we we to we we
we we we we we we we we o o onlyo only yo looil loo loo the y loo loo loo loo
loo loo look at at the ple it it at
the pe preaction, and it t to a cont e
t t e t e t e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e t
e e e t the or t e e t t
e t t t t or the or and t we
we we a e or t or t the or t
the e t t t a t a t all all
we e e t t t we we we to be
and e d and e t the e t e t
t e t t e the and d of the e
t t e t e and e e t e
e t t or and and t t e and e
e con t t t