Keeping Up Appearances: An Experimental Investigation in Social Pressure and Relative Ranks

Last registered on January 23, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Keeping Up Appearances: An Experimental Investigation in Social Pressure and Relative Ranks
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010773
Initial registration date
January 13, 2023

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
January 23, 2023, 6:14 AM EST

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

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Princeton University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Stanford University
PI Affiliation
Stanford University

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2022-11-29
End date
2023-05-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
There is increasing recognition among economists that human beings care about their relative place in society, not just their material welfare, and that subjective welfare has a real material cost. This study investigates two questions central to the welfare cost of relative rank considerations: (1) are individuals judged to be of a lower rank more likely to be victimized by those who judge themselves to be of higher rank and, if yes, what form does this victimization take; and (2) do individuals of lower rank distort their behavior in order to appear of higher rank than they actually are and, if yes, does this affect their consumption pattern or their engagement with welfare programs targeting the poor. The study population is recruited among urban and peri-urban dwellers of a large African city.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Dupas, Pascaline, Marcel Fafchamps and Laura Hernandez Nunez. 2023. "Keeping Up Appearances: An Experimental Investigation in Social Pressure and Relative Ranks." AEA RCT Registry. January 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10773-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We are conducting a series of “lab-in-the-field” experiments embedded in a survey. The details are provided in the Experimental Design section.
Intervention Start Date
2022-11-29
Intervention End Date
2023-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
• Second order beliefs about respectability and prejudices
• Choice of the raffle prize
• Willingness to pay to have a better-looking picture
• Willingness to participate in the documentaries
• Choice of remuneration for the participants of the documentaries
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
• Choice of the raffle prize: Take-up of the basic basket, the luxury basket, or the charity contribution
• Willingness to pay (in terms of time and effort) for a better picture: binary indicator capturing whether the individuals show interest/ exert some effort to have a better-looking picture
• How the picture provided is scored (by a panel of individuals or an AI algorithm) in terms of perceived social status/SES.
• Willingness to participate in the documentaries: what documentary people volunteer for – a documentary about hardship, a documentary about success, or none
• Choice of remuneration for the participants of the documentaries: what item individuals choose for the participants of certain documentary (the respondents choose the remuneration for others; the respondents do not participate in the documentaries)
• Documentation of second order beliefs about respectability or prejudices through vignettes: The vignettes aim to capture people’s expectation regarding the victimization or favorability of individuals of different economic status in different scenarios.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study is divided into two key parts. One part relies on a survey to document the main assumptions made in the model, i.e., about victimization and social taxation. This part relies primarily on Vignettes and Likert scale questions asked to a large stratified random sample of urban and peri-urban dwellers in and around Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The other part investigates the existence of costly behavior aimed at manipulating one's perceived socio-economic rank in a group. This part is implemented using various lab-in-the-field experiments.

Part A: Lab-in-the-field experiments

1. Experiment “Tombola”: we offer respondents the possibility to choose the prize they would like to receive if they win a raffle that will take place at the end of the data collection. Respondents have three choices: a basket of basic goods, a basket with luxury items, or a contribution to charitable organizations. All three choices have the same monetary value, and this is made clear to participants.
The treatment arms are as follows:
- PRIVATE: respondents record their choice on their own with the tablet, the enumerator doesn't see what they sign up for.
- ENUMERATOR-AWARE: respondents must tell the enumerator which item they would want.
- PUBLIC: respondents sign up on a sheet of paper that has one column per item. The sheets have been prepared in such a way that, for a subset, the first row contains the name of the respondent, and the following rows contain fictional names resembling those of people in their neighborhood; for another subset, all rows are blanked and the respondent is asked to write their name and their choice. In both cases, the respondent should expect that participants surveyed after her will be given the same sheet of paper and hence observe her choice.
We use this to test the following hypothesis: respondents are less likely to choose the “status” goods (luxury basket or contribution to charity) in the PRIVATE treatment compared to the two NON-PRIVATE treatments.

2. Experiment “Photo”: we randomly assign people to treatment conditions as follows:
- Control: we ask respondents their consent to be taken a picture for our records as part of the data collection audit procedures.
-Treatment: we ask respondents their consent to be taken a picture for our records and to be used by a local panel to select participants for a video collecting views on the way people in Abidjan enjoy themselves.

We offer the option to pay a time/effort cost to provide a nicer picture at a later time in case the respondent wants the opportunity to improve their appearance.

We use this to test the following hypothesis: respondents are willing to pay (in time/effort) to produce a photograph that make them look higher-rank in order to improve their chances of being selected for the documentary.

In addition, we test that having a second photograph taken makes the person look higher-rank. To this effect, after the survey, we invite a panel of individuals from Abidjan to rank all the photographs taken by the likely socio-economic status of the person in the picture. We then test whether the person is ranked higher socially in the second photograph than in the first. As control, we also ask the panel to rate the attractiveness of the applicant, to net out its possible correlation with reported SES rank. This analysis is disaggregated by gender to test the hypothesis that appearances are a more informative signal about socio-economic status for women than for men.

3. Experiment “Documentary”: We tell respondents that we are recruiting people to participate in two documentaries about Abidjan. We are seeking two types of people: (1) people who can talk about current hardship and challenges they are facing (“Babi* est dure”) (note: Babi is the affectionate nickname that inhabitants of Abidjan have for their city)); and (2) people who can talk about successes (“Abidjan: terre d’opportunités”). We ask participants in which documentary they’d be willing to participate, if any. The same treatment arms as the experiment Tombola are used to elicit this choice: PRIVATE, ENUMERATOR, or PUBLIC. After choosing the documentary they want to participate in, we offer participants the option to pay a time/effort cost to provide a nicer picture at a later time in case they want a chance to improve their appearance.

We use this to test the following hypotheses: respondents are more likely to choose the “hardship” documentary in the PRIVATE treatment compared to the NON-PRIVATE treatments; respondents who choose the documentary on successes are more likely to have a second picture taken, and this picture is more likely to be rated as signaling a higher rank. This analysis is disaggregated by gender to test the hypothesis that appearance is a more informative signal about socio-economic status for women than for men.

4. Experiment “Social preferences”: in this experiment we capture the preferences/beliefs about what others should receive as compensation through 2 questions. We tell respondents that we are organizing a documentary and we ask: (1) What compensation should we give people who participate in the documentary; a basket of necessities or a luxury item? and (2) Do you think we should let people choose by themselves or should we just choose for them?

We randomize respondents into two groups:
- SUCCESS: we tell them the people we need to compensate are giving testimonials of success.
- HARDSHIP: we tell them the people we need to compensate are giving testimonials of hardship.
We use this to test the following hypotheses: (a) respondents are less likely to choose the “status” goods (luxury basket) in the HARDSHIP treatment compared to the SUCCESS treatments; (b) respondents are less likely to say people should be allowed to choose for themselves in the HARDSHIP treatment compared to the SUCCESS treatments.

PART B: Vignettes

There are three sets of vignettes requiring the respondents to state the suitability (on a scale from 1 to 10) of a certain individual to the different scenarios (e.g., being selected for an interview, being suspected of a crime, being invited to a social gathering, etc.) depicted in the vignettes

1. The first set of vignettes consist of 6 different profiles (i.e., short CV) and 4 scenarios. Respondents are presented randomly 3 out of the 6 profiles in each scenario. The vignettes in this set will help identify beliefs about occupation and education.
2. In the second set of vignettes, respondents are presented photographs instead of profiles. The second set consists of 4 scenarios. Respondents are presented with 3 photographs (randomly) in each scenario. There is a pool of 18 photographs of 6 different people. Each person is photographed dressed in a low, medium, or high SES outfits and respondents are never presented the same person in different outfits.
3. The third set of vignettes consists of 3 scenarios and 10 different profiles. In addition to standard profile features such as those used in set 1, each profile indicates whether the profiled applicant chose (1) a free meal or (2) a keychain and a tote bag as compensation for coming to a job interview. The choice made by the person in the scenario is part of their profile. This vignette captures the extent to which consumption patterns may be used to make value judgements.

Heterogeneity
We will estimate heterogeneity in choices in the experiments by own socio-economic status, following our theoretical framework which highlights that incentives to manipulate appearances are heterogeneous across the SES distribution.

Covariates
Our survey will collect information on covariates that we expect to be important determinants of choices and our main specifications will control for those to increase precision. This includes, in particular, gender, age and education level.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The sampling frame consists of 2,940 individuals surveyed during the first wave of the AUDRI individual survey in Cote d’Ivoire. Individuals are randomly assigned to 1 of 3 subsamples, 1 of 2 groups and two treatment arms within each experiment they participate in.

• Subsamples: respondents are randomly assigned to participate in either experiment Photo, Documentary, or Social Preferences (1 of the 3). All respondents participate in the experiment Tombola. All respondents participate in the vignettes.
• Groups: respondents are randomly assigned to respond the vignettes before or after the second experiment. We randomize the order of the vignettes because the vignettes make social image salient, therefore it is possible that the treatment effects are amplified.

The randomization was done using computer-generated random numbers.
Randomization Unit
Individuals
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
The starting sample includes 2940 individuals interviewed for a baseline survey in 2019. We expect some attrition due to people relocating, etc. The target sample size for the study is 2500 individuals.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
- Experiment “Tombola”: 3 treatment arms; up to 980 individuals per treatment arm
- Experiment “Photo”: 2 treatment arms; up 490 individuals per treatment arm
- Experiment “Documentary”: 3 treatment arms; up to 326 individuals (control), 327 individuals (enumerator aware), 327 individuals (public)
- Experiment “Social preferences”: 2 treatment arms; up to 490 individuals per treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Stanford IRB
IRB Approval Date
2022-10-31
IRB Approval Number
42884

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