Willingness to Tweet: daylight saving

Last registered on November 13, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Willingness to Tweet: daylight saving
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010310
Initial registration date
October 31, 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
November 13, 2022, 1:15 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region
Illinois

Primary Investigator

Name
Aakaash Rao
Affiliation
Harvard University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Leonardo Bursztyn
PI Affiliation
University of Chicago
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Chris Roth
PI Affiliation
University of Cologne
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Ingar Haaland
PI Affiliation
NHH Norwegian School of Economics
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Georgy Egorov
PI Affiliation
Kellogg School of Management
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2022-10-31
End date
2022-11-11
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We examine how the ability to attribute one's support for a non-controversial campaign to a scientific article espousing the campaign's cause affects willingness to publicly support the campaign.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bursztyn, Leonardo et al. 2022. "Willingness to Tweet: daylight saving." AEA RCT Registry. November 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10310-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We examine how the ability to attribute one's support for a non-controversial campaign to a scientific article espousing the campaign's cause affects willingness to publicly support the campaign.
Intervention Start Date
2022-10-31
Intervention End Date
2022-11-11

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Whether or not the participant chooses to authorize the Twitter post
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
(1) An indicator for whether the respondent indicates that the Tweet is misleading
(2) Conditional on (1), an indicator for whether the respondent indicates any concern that the Tweet is misleading about the timing of when they read the article
(3) Marlowe-Crowne social desirability score (used to characterize the distribution of social desirability among the sample which selected into the experiment, which we will compare to the distribution in a general population sample)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We examine how the ability to attribute one's support for a non-controversial campaign to a scientific article espousing the campaign's cause affects willingness to publicly support the campaign.
Experimental Design Details
Participants are shown an article written by Vanderbilt neurologist Beth Malow discussing the effect of daylight savings time on sleep and health and decide whether or not to (privately) join a campaign to end daylight savings time. They are then told they will have the opportunity to schedule a post to be made on their Twitter account encouraging their followers to sign a petition to oppose daylight savings time. The experiment manipulates only one word: whether the post indicates that the participant saw the article before joining the campaign, or after joining the campaign.
Randomization Method
Randomization through Qualtrics
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
523
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Half of the sample in the "Cover" condition; half in the "No Cover" condition.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We expect no differences between treatment groups. Assuming an average control mean of 80%, we will be powered to reject the null for treatment effects of 0.089 or greater.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Chicago Social and Behavioral Sciences IRB
IRB Approval Date
2021-03-05
IRB Approval Number
IRB19-1320
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