|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 17, 2023 01:50 PM
|
After
October 30, 2023 04:51 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
We will estimate the supply curve for blood using BDM linked to actual option for blood giving with the Red Cross afterwards. We then measure how the supply of blood can be shifted by peer behavior (information provision), and measure how concordance with actions with peers in a identity group shifts an individual's identity closeness using incentivized measures and a Likert scale score. We then measure the persistence of such identity closeness shifts, again with an incentivized measures tied to consequential decisions.
|
After
We will assess willingness to donate blood and estimate the supply curve for blood using BDM linked to actual option for blood giving with the Red Cross afterwards. We then measure how the supply of blood can be shifted by peer behavior (information provision), and measure how concordance with actions with peers in a identity group shifts an individual's identity closeness using incentivized measures and a Likert scale score. We then measure the persistence of such identity closeness shifts, again with an incentivized measures tied to consequential decisions.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
There are 2 primary outcomes:
(1) WTA for blood giving.
(2) Degree of identification to different identity groups (women/men, LUH student, and others) - 3 measures (differences in the identification score on a 1-7 Likert Scale, difference amount shared in a trust game, difference in number of points allocated to policy issues popular with female voters vs male votes)
|
After
There are 2 sets of primary outcomes:
(1) WTA for blood giving and willingness to donate blood as a gift with no payment
(2) Degree of identification to different identity groups (women/men, LUH student, and others) - 3 measures (differences in the identification score on a 1-7 Likert Scale, difference amount shared in a trust game, difference in number of points allocated to policy issues popular with female voters vs male votes)
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
The WTA for blood giving will just be based on BDM, and the price is denominated in Euros.
The Degree of identification to different identity groups (women/men, LUH student, and others) will be calculated in the following way:
measures (differences in the identification score on a 1-7 Likert Scale, difference amount shared in a trust game, difference in number of points allocated to policy issues popular with female voters vs male votes)
See attached files for more details, as well as attached pre-registered hypotheses below in "Experimental Design".
|
After
The WTA for blood giving will just be based on BDM, and the price is denominated in Euros. Willingness to donate blood as a gift is a Yes/No question.
The Degree of identification to different identity groups (women/men, LUH student, and others) will be calculated in the following way:
measures (differences in the identification score on a 1-7 Likert Scale, difference amount shared in a trust game, difference in number of points allocated to policy issues popular with female voters vs male votes)
See attached files for more details, as well as attached pre-registered hypotheses below in "Experimental Design".
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Using an actual blood giving campaign, we elicit individuals' willingness-to-accept to give their blood (in Euros). We conduct a BDM to estimate the WTA. The main information provision experiment provides the participants with one of 4 treatments: control; information about the sub-sample of a survey where women are more likely to give blood than men; information about the sub-sample of a survey where men are more likely to give blood than women; and information about the sub-sample of a survey where LUH students are more likely to give blood than those who are not LUH students. The secondary provides some participants about how scarce their blood is or control. The decision to donate and the BDM is conducted after information provision. We measure how much participants identify with female/male/university identities using three different mechanism (including a Likert scale question, and two incentivized measures: trust game and voting task) - the key measure is the difference in the degree of identity affinity between the identity group of interest (e.g. women) and that of the other group (e.g. men).
An important pre-experiment study is one where we conduct a survey in Hannover, Germany to survey individuals about their blood giving behavior along with demographic information and other relevant information (e.g. music preferences to create a minimal group paradigm for latter versions of the experiment). (Attached as "LUH-Blooddonation-pre-survey")
|
After
Using an actual blood giving campaign, we elicit individuals' willingness-to-accept to give their blood (in Euros). We conduct a BDM to estimate the WTA. We also ask for willingness to donate blood as a gift (no payment). The main information provision experiment provides the participants with one of 4 treatments: control; information about the sub-sample of a survey where women are more likely to give blood than men; information about the sub-sample of a survey where men are more likely to give blood than women; and information about the sub-sample of a survey where LUH students are more likely to give blood than those who are not LUH students. The secondary provides some participants about how scarce their blood is or control. The decision to donate and the BDM is conducted after information provision. We measure how much participants identify with female/male/university identities using three different mechanism (including a Likert scale question, and two incentivized measures: trust game and voting task) - the key measure is the difference in the degree of identity affinity between the identity group of interest (e.g. women) and that of the other group (e.g. men).
An important pre-experiment study is one where we conduct a survey in Hannover, Germany to survey individuals about their blood giving behavior along with demographic information and other relevant information (e.g. music preferences to create a minimal group paradigm for latter versions of the experiment). (Attached as "LUH-Blooddonation-pre-survey")
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Step 1: Elicit identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group (using the trust game where the counterpart would have different identities, e.g. female signaled via a female sounding name and feminine pronouns), and voting measure for identity affinity, at baseline in survey 1 --> THIS IS OUR BASELINE IDENTITY (captured by our Survey 1, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 1. Survey")
Step 2: In survey 2, provide prominent information about higher or lower peer giving rate (for wave 1, 4 arms: men, women, students of University of Hannover, no information/control) - e.g. "Based on a survey done by the University on 10/XX/2023, we found that women are more likely to give blood than men", the control group will receive no information
Step 3: For this edition of the experiment (done in person in the university), ask for blood type and provide either a “high scarcity awareness” or “low scarcity awareness” information treatment - information provision how rare their blood types are based on blood types.
Step 4: Use BDM to illicit willingness-to-accept without any priming (they can put any number) => map out supply curve and help quantify the effect of peer pressure treatment
Step 5: Elicit identity levels and trust again (identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group, and voting measure for identity affinity) --> THIS IS OUR POST-TREATMENT IDENTITY (steps 2-7 are captured by our Survey 2, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 2. Survey")
Step 6: Tell about actual payment (0 or 17 Euro) and give option to register for Nov. 6. - 17 was randomly drawn with the supervision of a Notary Public and based on what subjects submitted for the BDM, they will get paid 0 (if they put down a price higher than 17) or 17
=>linked to registration page that gathers Red Cross required information
Step 7: Actual donation decision, pay those who actually donated
Step 8: Elicit identity levels and trust again (identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group, and voting measure for identity affinity,) before Christmas --> THIS IS OUR LONG-TERM IDENTITY (captured by our Survey 3, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 3. Survey")
|
After
Step 1: Elicit identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group (using the trust game where the counterpart would have different identities, e.g. female signaled via a female sounding name and feminine pronouns), and voting measure for identity affinity, at baseline in survey 1 --> THIS IS OUR BASELINE IDENTITY (captured by our Survey 1, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 1. Survey")
Step 2: In survey 2, provide prominent information about higher or lower peer giving rate (for wave 1, 4 arms: men, women, students of University of Hannover, no information/control) - e.g., "A survey conducted by the Leibniz University of Hannover in 2023 found that in the year before:
Men are over 4% more likely to donate blood than women." (see attached survey tool)
Step 3: For this edition of the experiment (done in person in the university), ask for blood type and provide either a “high scarcity awareness” or “low scarcity awareness” information treatment - information provision how rare their blood types are based on blood types.
Step 4: Use BDM to illicit willingness-to-accept without any priming (they can put any number) and ask about willingness to donate as a gift (ordering of these 2 questions in step 4 randomized) => map out supply curve and help quantify the effect of peer pressure treatment
Step 5: Elicit identity levels and trust again (identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group, and voting measure for identity affinity) --> THIS IS OUR POST-TREATMENT IDENTITY (steps 2-7 are captured by our Survey 2, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 2. Survey")
Step 6: Tell about actual payment (0 or 17 Euro) and give option to register for Nov. 6. - 17 was randomly drawn with the supervision of a Notary Public and based on what subjects submitted for the BDM, they will get paid 0 (if they put down a price higher than 17) or 17
=>linked to registration page that gathers Red Cross required information
Step 7: Actual donation decision, pay those who actually donated
Step 8: Elicit identity levels and trust again (identity (Likert scale), trust by identity group, and voting measure for identity affinity,) before Christmas --> THIS IS OUR LONG-TERM IDENTITY (captured by our Survey 3, attached as "LUH-Blooddonation - 3. Survey")
|