AEA RCT Registry currently lists 2606 studies with locations in 136 countries.
Recent debate has identified important gaps in the understanding of intertemporal risks. Critical to closing these gaps is evidence on which dimension of intertemporal risk –the risk or the time–is evaluated first. Though under discounted expected utility this ordering is of no consequence, under discounted non-expected utility models the order of evaluation is critical. We provide experimental tests in which different orderings of evaluation generate different predictions for behavior. We find more support for the notion that the risk dimension is evaluated first.
We conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the impact of on-the-job soft skills training for supervisors on line productivity, worker attendance, and psychological well-being in five garment factories in Bangladesh. Line supervisors and chiefs are randomly selected to receive either ten sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy featuring effective communication and stress management techniques; ten health information sessions (active control intervention), or no intervention (pure control group). We measure stress levels using biomarkers (hair cortisol) and self-reported data. We also measure on-the-job productivity, income, absenteeism, and hours of work.
This is a randomized trial evaluating a seasonal migration incentivization program, No Lean Season, implemented in partnership by Evidence Action and RDRS. The program aims to mitigate seasonal hardship in rural agricultural areas but providing loans to rural laborer, incentivizing them to seek temporary employment in nearby cities. The evaluation aims to (a) update findings from previous research studies, and in particular, to investigate whether the program's positive impact will be replicable at scale; and (b) investigate the program’s spillover effects on workers at the migration destination who are not offered migration incentives. Welfare outcomes (expenditure, caloric intake, income, and food security) will be measured in a manner consistent with previous evaluations of this prog...
This project explores whether preferences for redistribution in Australia are reduced because people underestimate the level of inequality and overestimate the degree of social mobility. Studying these concepts interactively is consistent with a number of seminal models and provides important additional insight. This research will be conducted through an online experiment in Australia whereby ‘information interventions’ about inequality, mobility and a respondent's place in the distribution are provided to randomly selected treatment groups to see the impact on their preferences for redistribution. These information interventions are motivated by misperceptions of inequality and mobility that were revealed in a 2014 nationally representative survey (Norton et al, 2014).
This study explores whether preferences for redistribution are reduced because people underestimate the level of inequality and overestimate the degree of social mobility in their country. In addition, it examines the degree that an individual’s perceived place in the income distribution effects their support for redistribution. This research will be conducted through online surveys in 10 countries whereby ‘information interventions’ are provided to randomly selected treatment groups to see the impact on their preferences for redistribution. These information interventions are motivated by existing surveys that have shown misperceptions of inequality and mobility exist in many countries around the world.
This project explores whether preferences for redistribution in Indonesia are reduced because people underestimate the level of inequality and overestimate the degree of social mobility. Studying these concepts interactively is consistent with a number of seminal models and provides important additional insight. This research will be conducted through an online experiment in Indonesia whereby ‘information interventions’ about inequality and mobility are provided to randomly selected treatment groups to see the impact on their preferences for redistribution. These information interventions are motivated by misperceptions of inequality and mobility that were revealed in a 2014 nationally representative survey.
This survey experiment focuses on whether the way how Foreign Aid is framed effects public opinion about aid.
How to hold education and health service providers accountable for the quality of services they deliver, and how to empower service users to voice their concerns, is a question relevant across all contexts. A collaboration of three NGOs in Bangladesh has been piloting an innovative approach to achieve this objective. The child-led social accountability (CLSA) approach involves organising and informing groups of children to monitor quality of services provided at education and health facilities, hold discussions with service providers to determine actions to address their concerns, and follow up on progress against the agreed actions. This study evaluates the impact of the CLSA approach.
This research project will evaluate the effectiveness of two different approaches to homelessness prevention. We will use a lottery to measure the effectiveness of (1) a combined program of progressive case management and flexible funds relative to (2) immediate financial assistance. This project will be conducted in the context of the Youth and Family Homelessness Prevention Initiative (YFHPI) in King County, Washington, where lawmakers are interested in assessing the effectiveness of the program's case management component. The results of this study will also be informative to policymakers and service providers in other communities that are interested in the most effective means of homelessness prevention. This lead investigators on this project are from the Wilson Sheehan Lab...
Why don't communities adopt democratic or inclusive institutions after a community-driven development program, despite professing higher pro-social values in surveys? Using a novel field experiment which elicits ex-ante valuation of different decision-making processes, combined with a randomly-assigned community-driven development program, we distinguish between three potential explanations: experimenter demand effects in surveys; preferences over different approaches to decision-making; and resistance to change from vested interests.