It looks like you threw out the people who gave 0 to charity when you took the log. I typically use ln(x+1) for these types of variables, which maps zero to zero.
In this case, your approach leads to stronger effects (or at least lower p values). Repeating your analysis with the full data set (n=575), it’s actually statistically significant on its own (Welch t=2.03, p=.043), means of 5.25 vs. 4.92. Excluding non-givers also gives lower p-values in the analyses I described here; when controlling just for age the effect of consequentialism is significant at p=.001 (geometric means $204 vs. $121). Even though the trend is for consequentialists to be more likely to give than non-consequentialists, it looks like the added noise of having all those points at zero has a bigger effect.
I threw out zero because it seems like a non-response to me in a lot of questions. Someone giving a number shows they have at least responded with a non-default and did donate something, while someone leaving a zero may be simply equivalent to people who left empty responses.
(While I’m commenting on my analysis: from a utilitarian perspective, comparing logs doesn’t even make sense; personal utility may follow some sort of logarithm in money, but charities don’t—the problems are just too big for any one person.)
It looks like you threw out the people who gave 0 to charity when you took the log. I typically use ln(x+1) for these types of variables, which maps zero to zero.
In this case, your approach leads to stronger effects (or at least lower p values). Repeating your analysis with the full data set (n=575), it’s actually statistically significant on its own (Welch t=2.03, p=.043), means of 5.25 vs. 4.92. Excluding non-givers also gives lower p-values in the analyses I described here; when controlling just for age the effect of consequentialism is significant at p=.001 (geometric means $204 vs. $121). Even though the trend is for consequentialists to be more likely to give than non-consequentialists, it looks like the added noise of having all those points at zero has a bigger effect.
I threw out zero because it seems like a non-response to me in a lot of questions. Someone giving a number shows they have at least responded with a non-default and did donate something, while someone leaving a zero may be simply equivalent to people who left empty responses.
(While I’m commenting on my analysis: from a utilitarian perspective, comparing logs doesn’t even make sense; personal utility may follow some sort of logarithm in money, but charities don’t—the problems are just too big for any one person.)