|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Behavioural intervention: We randomly assign informational treatments. In the treatment condition, respondents watch an educational animated video explaining the accountability conception of democracy using a metaphor easy to grasp for a layperson. In one control condition, neutral information about general election eligibility and procedures is provided, in a visual format identical to the treatment video. In a second control condition, respondents do not watch any video.
Measurement intervention: Apart from the behavioral intervention above, we use different methods to experimentally measure the outcomes of interest. First, to measure preferences regarding leadership quality, we are using a conjoint experiment. In this experiment, respondents choose between fifteen pairs of fully randomized hypothetical legislative candidate profiles. Demographic characteristics, identities (religion and ethnicity), valence, and position on divisive issues are randomly assigned to profiles.
Second, we are using list experiment to measure the prevalence of vote buying during the campaign period as well as during the actual election. In list experiment, respondents are asked to state the number of activities they see or experienced from the list we provide them. The experiment randomly vary the number of activities listed for different group. The list given to the control and the treatment group are exactly similar except that the treatment group will also receive a sensitive item in their list (vote buying activities). The magnitude of vote buying is measured by comparing the average number of values stated in the treatment and the control group.
|
After
Behavioural intervention: We randomly assign informational treatments. In the treatment condition, respondents watch an educational animated video explaining the accountability conception of democracy using a metaphor easy to grasp for a layperson. In one control condition, neutral information about general election eligibility and procedures is provided, in a visual format identical to the treatment video. In a second control condition, respondents do not watch any video.
Measurement intervention: Apart from the behavioral intervention above, we use different methods to experimentally measure the outcomes of interest. First, to measure preferences regarding leadership quality, we are using a conjoint experiment. In this experiment, respondents choose between fifteen pairs of fully randomized hypothetical legislative candidate profiles. Demographic characteristics, identities (religion and ethnicity), valence, and position on divisive issues are randomly assigned to profiles.
Second, we are using list experiment to measure the prevalence of vote buying during the campaign period as well as during the actual election. In list experiment, respondents are asked to state the number of activities they see or experienced from the list we provide them. The experiment randomly vary the number of activities listed for different group. The list given to the control and the treatment group are exactly similar except that the treatment group will also receive a sensitive item in their list (vote buying activities). The magnitude of vote buying is measured by comparing the average number of values stated in the treatment and the control group.
(Previously hidden details of intervention): The explain the accountability conception of democratic election, we use a metaphor of a person who inherit a convenient store from his grandparents but then need to hire someone else to manage the store. Store manager will run the store on behalf of the owner, and hence act as an agent for the principal (store owner). This type of principal-agent relationship is how, we try to convince the respondents, we suppose to look at the relationship between voters and their representatives in the legislative body.
|