Empowerment through giving advice

Last registered on February 14, 2024


Trial Information

General Information

Empowerment through giving advice
Initial registration date
February 09, 2024

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
February 14, 2024, 4:41 PM EST

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



Primary Investigator

ZEW Mannheim, Germany

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
The project deals with the question of whether giving advice on a tool that simulates financial investments can strengthen people's confidence in their own financial decision-making abilities. The particular focus is on women. The project is funded by the Joachim Herz Foundation.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Knebel, Caroline. 2024. "Empowerment through giving advice." AEA RCT Registry. February 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11916-1.0
Experimental Details


This project uses a survey experiment to study whether the usage of an investment simulation tool combined with an advice-giving task boosts confidence in one’s financial decision-making skills and motivation to deal with the topic of “saving and investing”. It relies on the random assignment of two treatments. First, participants are assigned to a simulation tool with either a finance frame or a neutral frame. Second, participants are either asked to give hypothetical financial advice to a friend after using the tool or not. With this 2x2 between-subjects design, a causal effect of the tool and additional tasks on the confidence and motivation can be obtained.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Financial literacy/ knowledge and confidence
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Financial literacy/ knowledge: (1) Subjective measure: Number of correct answers to three advanced financial literacy questions (Score). (2) Objective measure: Self-assessment of financial literacy “In the course of the survey, we asked you six quiz questions on financial knowledge. How many questions do you think you answered correctly?” Scale: 0 to 6, do not know, refuse to answer;
Confidence: (1) Direct measure: “How much confidence do you have in your ability to make good financial decisions?” Scale: 0 “no confidence” to 10 “very high confidence”; (2) Tool-specific confidence: after each comprehension question in the interactive graph “How sure are you about your answer?” (Scale 0 “not sure at all” to 10 “very sure”); (3) Indirect measures: (i) “I would never participate in the stock market without my advisor.” (Scale 0 “fully disagree” to 10 “fully agree”), (ii) “I have the confidence to participate in the stock market.” (Scale 0 “fully disagree” to 10 “fully agree”), (iii) Number of “do not know” responses in the advanced financial literacy questions (Score) to approximate for over-confidence

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
(1) Direct measure (After the experiment): “How motivated are you to [further] deal with the topic of “saving and investing”?” Scale: 0 “Not motivated at all” to 10 “Very strongly motivated”
(2) Indirect measure (At the end of the questionnaire): “Thank you for taking part in our survey! As a thank you, we offer you the opportunity to download one of these three resources free of charge.” Scale: Dummy equals 0 if the participant does not download a document related to further learning about finance, 1 of the participant downloads a document related to finance

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Both the framing of the simulation tool and the advice-giving component are randomized. Therefore, it is a 2x2 between-subjects design.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
1000 survey participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
In the 2x2 between-subjects design, each of the four groups will contain approximately 250 observations.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
GfeW – Gesellschaft für experimentelle Wirtschaftsforschung e.V.
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials