Does the framing of information on inequality in absolute or relative terms affect altruism?

Last registered on June 07, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Does the framing of information on inequality in absolute or relative terms affect altruism?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010212
Initial registration date
October 15, 2022

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
October 17, 2022, 5:33 PM EDT

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

Last updated
June 07, 2023, 4:44 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Copenhagen

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
UNU-WIDER
PI Affiliation
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
PI Affiliation
Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2022-11-14
End date
2023-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Other-regarding or social preferences – including altruism – are important in social interactions, cooperative behaviour and, more generally, in public life and politics. Previous literature has shown some evidence of the effects of information treatments on policy preferences, although the results are mixed. In light of the strand of literature showing that some individuals perceive inequality in absolute terms while others perceive inequality in relative terms (note that the most widely used measures are based on the latter), we examine whether the framing of information about inequality in absolute or relative terms affects altruistic behaviour.
We implement this economic experiment together with other games and a survey to collect background information on participants in both Mozambique and Vietnam.
More details are provided in the pre-analysis plan.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Tarp, Finn et al. 2023. "Does the framing of information on inequality in absolute or relative terms affect altruism?." AEA RCT Registry. June 07. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10212-3.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2022-11-14
Intervention End Date
2023-03-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Measures of altruism, which are the amounts indicated for donation in the dictator games with low and high stakes, respectively.
We use this measure to address our main question ‘Does the framing of information on inequality in absolute or relative terms affect altruism?’ by testing whether there are significant differences between the groups who heard the treatment in absolute or in relative terms.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The game is a simple (non-incentivized) dictator game with low and high stakes that allows us to observe the differences in the amount participants would be willing to donate depending on the overall value that is at stake. We use it to derive a measure of altruism. An example of the text used in the low stakes questions is as follows, illustrating with the Mozambique case:
“Imagine that you were given 200 MZN that you could keep or donate (a share or the entire amount) to build a well-functioning hospital or health centre in the village I described. You see on your answer sheet that there are ten circles with a 20. They represent ten notes of 20, for a total of 200 MZN. In this case, how much would you choose to keep and how much would you choose to donate?”
Our experiment includes an information treatment, read to participants before they play the dictator games. All participants receive information about the difference in wealth of the poorest person and the richest person in one village. For example, in the case of Mozambique enumerators read the following: “I will now give you some information about a different village in Mozambique, for example, Alipe. This information is about a village in Mozambique. Many people live there.” To half of the participants in the session we frame this information in absolute terms (our absolute treatment) and show a diagram to highlight the absolute differences: “As you can see in this drawing, the richest person has 6 goats more than the poorest person.” To the other half of the participants we frame the information in relative terms (our relative treatment), again showing a diagram to highlight the relative differences: “As you can see in this drawing, the richest person has 4 times more goats than the poorest person.” This allows us to assess whether providing information about inequality in relative or absolute terms influences the participants’ answers in the dictator games.
Additionally, before receiving the information treatment and playing the dictator games, we ask participants a simple question to infer whether they think about inequality in absolute or relative terms. We then examine whether this indicator is correlated with the amounts chosen for donation in the dictator games.
The design of the study is based on between-subject comparison. In each country, we initially run a total of 40 sessions, 20 in rural settings and 20 in urban settings (see more details on the sampling in section 3) and we will add an additional round of 40 sessions, 20 in rural settings and 20 in urban settings, in the South of Vietnam. Each of the treatments is randomly allocated to half of the participants in each session.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The randomization is done within the experimental site. Half of the participants are randomly selected to go to a different room (based on a random count).
Randomization Unit
The treatment is randomized at the individual level. Each of the treatments (absolute and relative) is randomly allocated to half of the participants in each session.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1,040 individuals in Mozambique and 2,080 individuals in Vietnam (total of 3,120 individuals).
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,040 individuals in Mozambique and 2,080 individuals in Vietnam (total of 3,120 individuals).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
In each data collection effort (Mozambique, North of Vietnam and South of Vietnam), 520 individuals receive the absolute treatment and 520 individuals receive the relative treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Joint Ethical Review Board (ERB) of UNU
IRB Approval Date
2022-03-29
IRB Approval Number
202203/01
IRB Name
Joint Ethical Review Board (ERB) of UNU
IRB Approval Date
2023-05-25
IRB Approval Number
202203/01_Amend
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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