Emotional vs Cognitive Priming on Prosocial Attitudes: a study on a representative sample of the Italian Adult Population

Last registered on May 24, 2023

Pre-Trial

General Information

Title

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0011475

Initial registration date

May 24, 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

May 24, 2023, 5:06 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country

Italy

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Mario A. MAGGIONI

Affiliation

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano - Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Domenico Rossignoli

PI Affiliation

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano - Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2023-06-01

End date

2023-06-30

Keywords

Behavior, Lab, Other

Additional Keywords

pro-social attitudes, pro-social behaviors

JEL code(s)

C91, D91

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted to investigate the effects of emotional and cognitive priming on prosocial behavior in Italian adults. A total of 1,500 Italian adults will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: 500 subjects to the emotional priming (through a photo), 500 subjects to the cognitive priming (through a diagram), 500 subjects to the control group. Participants in the emotional priming group will be shown a well-identifiable image of the COVID period. Participants in the cognitive priming group will be shown a picture of a diagram showing COVID related data. Participants in the control group will not be shown any picture. Participants will then play three experimental games: a Prisoner's Dilemma (PD), an Ultimatum Game as Proposer (UGP), and an Ultimatum Game as Responder (UGR). The results of this RCT are expected to show whether participants in the different priming groups will exhibit different choices than control group participants. The findings of this RCT may help expanding the understanding of the factors that influence prosocial behavior, especially in relation to the post-pandemic context.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

MAGGIONI, Mario A. and Domenico Rossignoli. 2023. "Emotional vs Cognitive Priming on Prosocial Attitudes: a study on a representative sample of the Italian Adult Population." AEA RCT Registry. May 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11475-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2023-06-01

Intervention End Date

2023-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Share of cooperative choices in the PD, share of endowment proposed to partner in the UGP, minimum acceptable offer in the UGR.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Choice in the PD is binary: C/N; choice in the UGP is a number from 1 to 10 representing the number of points to be sent to an anonymous partner; choice in the UGR is a number from 1 to 10 representing the minimum number of points that the subject is willing to accept to enforce the proposed split.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

The experiment is designed to test whether emotional or cognitive priming affects prosocial behavior. Specifically, we aim at testing whether the exposure to a stimulus that refreshes the memory and emotions of the COVID-19 pandemic affect the choices of Italian adults in situations where prosocial attitudes may determine the outcome of a choice.
Choices are based on three incentivized tasks widely used in economics: a Prisoner’s Dilemma, an Ultimatum Game (as Proposer) and an Ultimatum Game (as Responder).
The incentivized tasks will be included in a survey administered by Ipsos Italia to a representative sample of the Italian adult population. Representativeness is granted at each treatment arm level.
During the survey, participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: emotional priming, cognitive priming, or control. In the motional priming group participants will be shown a well-identifiable photographic image of the COVID period (randomly, one out of two images previously validated through a survey to a sample of the Italian adult population). In the cognitive priming group participants will be shown a picture of a diagram showing COVID related data (randomly, one out of two images previously validated through a survey to a sample of the Italian adult population). In the control group participants will not be shown any visual stimolus.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization is done by computer by Ipsos during the administration of the survey.

Randomization Unit

The 1st level of randomization is the assignment of each subject to one out of 3 treatment arms (emotional priming, cognitive priming, control). The 2nd level of randomization concerns the visual stimulus shown to each subject (half of each treatment group will receive a different image). A 3rd level of randomization concerns the order in which subject will play the responder ad the proposer in the Ultimatum Game (half of the subject in each group will play firstly the UGP and secondly the UGR; the other half will play firstly the UGR and secondly the UGP).

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

We do not have cluster treatment randomization

Sample size: planned number of observations

1500

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

500

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design). The outcome is expressed in relative terms (proportions within each experimental group), within the interval 0-1. Our power analysis has been conducted on the following parameters: Power: 80% Alpha (threshold for statistical significance): 0.05 Treatment/Control ratio: 1. We expect to collect 500 subjects in each treatment group. We explore three scenarios w.r.t. control group means: 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, assuming a constant standard deviation of 0.2. The Minimum Detectable Effect Size for the main outcomes is: 0.05. Assuming a larger standard deviation of 0.3, the Minimum Detectable Effect Size for the main outcomes is: 0.075.

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB