Representative evidence on the endogeneity of moral assessments and beliefs

Last registered on April 30, 2019
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Representative evidence on the endogeneity of moral assessments and beliefs
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004152
Initial registration date
April 29, 2019

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 30, 2019, 9:15 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Germany
Region
Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Philipp Lergetporer
Affiliation
Technical University of Munich
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Katharina Werner
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Elisabeth Grewenig
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Ludger Woessmann
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Katharina Werner
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Elisabeth Grewenig
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Ludger Woessmann
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2019-05-06
End date
2021-12-31
Keywords
Education, Other
Additional Keywords
Morality, Fairness, Experiment, Dictator Games, Altruism
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
In this project, we investigate the extent to which people manipulate their views on morality and fairness, and their factual beliefs in a self-serving way. We implement an online-survey experiment among a representative sample of adults aged 18 years and older in Germany. Each subject is randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups, and completes two consecutive stages. In stage 1 of treatment 1, the subject divides a fixed endowment of Experimental Currency Units (“Lifepoints”) between herself and a charity which supports children with low educational success. In stage 2, the subject completes a questionnaire about (i) the morality and fairness of supporting children with low educational success, and (ii) beliefs about the reasons, consequences, and improvability of (low) educational success. Treatment 2 is identical except for the fact that the allocation task in stage 1 is between other survey participants (instead of the subject herself) and the charity. By comparing responses in stage 2 between treatments 1 and 2, we assess whether moral assessments and beliefs change to justify previous selfish choices. Treatment 3 is identical to treatment 1, except for the fact that the order of stages is switched (stage 1: questions and moral and beliefs; stage 2: allocation task between subject herself and charity). Comparing allocation decisions between treatment 1 and 3 allow us to investigate the extent to which allocation decisions are affected by preceding (moral) introspection. At the same time, responses in stage 1 of treatment 3 provide a benchmark for moral assessments and beliefs which is uncontaminated by preceding allocation decisions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Grewenig, Elisabeth et al. 2019. "Representative evidence on the endogeneity of moral assessments and beliefs." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4152-1.0
Former Citation
Grewenig, Elisabeth et al. 2019. "Representative evidence on the endogeneity of moral assessments and beliefs." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4152/history/45724
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We investigate whether people manipulate moral assessments and beliefs to justify self-serving behavior. Subjects complete a questionnaire on (i) the morality and fairness of supporting children with low educational success and (ii) beliefs about reasons, consequences, and improvability of (low) educational success. Depending on the experimental group (control group or treatment 1), subjects play one of two versions of a dictator game prior to the questionnaire. The receiver in the dictator game is a charity supporting children with low educational success, and the experimental groups differ in the extent to which the dictator game allows selfish allocations. The design enables us to study the endogeneity of morality views and beliefs with respect to previous actions. In a second treatment, subjects first complete the questionnaire and only then play the dictator game where they allocate an endowment between themselves and the charity. This treatment allows us to study the reverse channel, namely the endogeneity of dictator-game giving with respect to prior (moral) introspection.
Intervention Start Date
2019-05-06
Intervention End Date
2019-06-13

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcomes of interest are subjects moral assessments and beliefs (elicited in the questionnaire).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Questionnaire on morality, fairness and factual beliefs about educational success.

[Question wording:]
“To what extent do you agree to the following statements on the educational success of children?”

[Items:]
1. “It is our moral obligation to support children with low educational success.”
2. “It is fair to provide special support to children with low educational success.”
3. “Low educational success is mostly due to lack of children’s effort.”
4. “Low educational success is mostly due to reasons beyond children’s control.”
5. “Educational success is important for the students’ future.”
6. “Efforts to support children with low educational success are mostly ineffective.”

[Explanation of items: 1-2: Moral assessment; 3-4: Beliefs about sources of poor educational performance; 5-6: Beliefs about importance and improvability of educational success. In the analysis, we will create three indices (containing two items each, one for each category).]

[Answer categories:]
5-point scale: 1=”completely agree”, 2=”somewhat agree”, 3=”neither agree nor disagree”, 4=”somewhat disagree”, 5=”completely disagree”

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Dictator-game behavior.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Allocation of 60 Lifepoints between oneself (treatments 1 and 3) or other survey participants (treatment 2) and a charity supporting children with low educational success.

[Answer category]

O 60 Lifepoints for [recipient] / 0 for the charity
O 50 / 10
O 40 / 20
O 30 / 30
O 20 / 40
O 10 / 50
O 0 Lifepoints for [recipient] / 60 for the charity”

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct the experiment in a sample of 4,000 adults aged 18 years and older. The survey is conducted in cooperation with a renowned German survey institute, KANTAR Public. The recruitment and polling is managed by KANTAR Public, who collect the data via an online platform. That is, our participants answer the survey questions autonomously on their own digital devices. Randomization is carried out by KANTAR Public at the individual level, using a computer.

Our experiment is structured as follows:
Respondents will be randomly assigned (between subject) to control group1 (p=1/3), treatment 1 (p=1/3) or treatment 2 (p=1/3).


Control group:
Stage 1: Dictator game (oneself versus charity).
Stage 2: Questionnaire on morality, fairness and factual beliefs about (low) educational success.

Treatment 1:
Stage 1: Dictator game (other participants versus charity).
Stage 2: Questionnaire on morality, fairness and factual beliefs about (low) educational success.

Treatment 2:
Stage 1: Questionnaire on morality, fairness and factual beliefs about (low) educational success.
Stage 2: Dictator game (oneself versus charity).
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by the survey company KANTAR Public, using a computer.
Randomization Unit
at the individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
4,000 individuals (aged 18 years and older)
Sample size: planned number of observations
4,000 individuals (aged 18 years and older)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
4,000 individuals, 1/3 (app. 1333) will be assigned to each of the three experimental groups.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials