|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
June 23, 2023 04:38 PM
|
After
July 06, 2023 11:17 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
In the main experiment, participants read news articles (Part 1 of the experiment) and are subsequently matched to four groups with different compositions of members of majority and minority. We define minority as those individuals with a name most ethnic Germans would identify belonging to Muslims, namely but not exclusively, Turkish, Arabic, Persian or some names originating from the Balkans. We define majority as individuals with an ethnic German name. The four groups vary in their composition comprising 0, 1, 4, or 9 minority members out of 10 group members. The group members will have their first name displayed during the main experiment. See below for the construction of the reference sample.
Participants in the main experiment will distribute money between themselves and each of these groups separately (Part 2 of the experiment). They will subsequently state their preference for decision-making rules that determine the distribution of money (Part 3 of the experiment).
Our main treatment variation is the type of news articles participants read before they make distribution decisions. They will either read 10 neutral news items without person identifiers or 10 articles that constitute a power threat. News articles that depict success stories of minority members constitute our power threat treatment. Each of these articles provide information about one minority group member living in Germany who either set up a successful firm or made important societal contributions. Articles are balanced with respect to gender with 5 female success stories and 5 male success stories. Neutral news articles are constructed on the basis of power threat articles. Here, individuals’ information is replaced with sectoral information or a focus on the innovation itself (if relevant).
Participants receive a fixed payoff for their participation. Their allocation decisions are incentivized as follows: At the end of the experiment, one participant and one allocation part is chosen per treatment for additional payment. Part 2 is chosen with 90 percent probability and Part 3 with 10 percent probability. With Part 2 being chosen, one of the groups is further with equal probability randomly chosen, and the participant’s allocation decision when facing that group determines his own additional payoff as well as the additional payoff of that group’s members. If Part 3 is chosen, the participant’s choices determine the decision-making rule that decides on the allocation of payoffs across the four groups. The participant here is making a decision behind the veil of ignorance, and thus, his or her payoff is equal to one randomly selected person out of the four groups.
|
After
In the main experiment, participants read news articles (Part 1 of the experiment) and are subsequently matched to four groups with different compositions of members of majority and minority. We define minority as those individuals with a name most ethnic Germans would identify belonging to Muslims, namely but not exclusively, Turkish, Arabic, Persian or some names originating from the Balkans. We define majority as individuals with an ethnic German name. The four groups vary in their composition comprising 0, 1, 4, or 9 minority members out of 10 group members. The group members will have their first name displayed during the main experiment. See below for the construction of the reference sample.
Participants in the main experiment will distribute money between themselves and each of these groups separately (Part 2 of the experiment). They will subsequently state their preference for decision-making rules that determine the distribution of money (Part 3 of the experiment).
Our main treatment variation is the type of news articles participants read before they make distribution decisions. They will either read 10 neutral news items without person identifiers or 10 articles that constitute a power threat. News articles that depict success stories of minority members constitute our power threat treatment. Each of these articles provide information about one minority group member living in Germany who either set up a successful firm or made important societal contributions. Articles are balanced with respect to gender with 5 female success stories and 5 male success stories. Neutral news articles are constructed on the basis of power threat articles. Here, individuals’ information is replaced with sectoral information or a focus on the innovation itself (if relevant).
Participants receive a fixed payoff for their participation. Their allocation decisions are incentivized as follows: At the end of the experiment, one participant and one allocation part is chosen per treatment for additional payment. Part 2 is chosen with 90 percent probability and Part 3 with 10 percent probability. With Part 2 being chosen, one of the groups is further with equal probability randomly chosen, and the participant’s allocation decision when facing that group determines his own additional payoff as well as the additional payoff of that group’s members. If Part 3 is chosen, the participant’s choices determine the decision-making rule that decides on the allocation of payoffs across the four groups. The participant here is making a decision behind the veil of ignorance, and thus, his or her payoff is equal to one randomly selected person out of the four groups.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
June 30, 2023
|
After
August 30, 2023
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
The main outcome variables comprise the allocation decisions in Part 2 and Part 3.
In Part 2, the outcome variable is the amount of money allocated to individuals based on their minority or majority membership.
The main outcome variable from Part 3 is the points allocated to authoritarian decision-making rules, decision rules 2 and 3. Further outcome variables are the points allocated to groups and individuals per group membership in decision rules 2 and 3, respectively.
|
After
The main outcome variables comprise the allocation decisions in Part 2 and Part 3.
In Part 2, the outcome variable is the amount of money allocated to individuals based on their minority or majority membership.
The main outcome variable from Part 3 is the points allocated to authoritarian decision-making rules, decision rules 2 and 3. Further outcome variables are the points allocated to groups and individuals per group membership in decision rules 2 and 3, respectively.
Primary outcome variables will further be separately analysed based on whether participants are from former West or East Germany.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
400
|
After
First data collection: 400
Second data collection: 200 participants
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
400
|
After
600
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
200 control, 200 power threat
|
After
300 control, 300 power threat, of which 400 comes from a representative German sample and an additional 200 from East German states.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
Based on GPower 3.1, in a linear regression with three predictors and a sample size of 400, with α=0.05, and power at 0.80, the minimum detectable effect size f2 is 0.019.
|
After
Based on GPower 3.1, in a linear regression with three predictors and a sample size of 400, with α=0.05, and power at 0.80, the minimum detectable effect size f2 is 0.019.
Amendment for second data collection: Based on Stata 16, with a t-test comparing two means in the main predictors with α=0.05 and power=0.80, 200 new observations from East Germany allows us to detect the observed treatment difference in the main sample for points allocated to the dictator rule and combined points allocated to groups with 0 and 1 person with a migration background in the one-group rule.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
|
After
After collecting data for our main experiment as listed in its original pre-registration, we observed a differential treatment effect in West and East Germany. Since our sample was aimed to be representative with respect to German state residency, we have relatively few observations from East Germany (formerly German Democratic Republic). We therefore collect more data from these to test whether indeed the treatment effect is only present in Easy Germany.
|