Subjective risk perception and ambiguity for heatstroke

Last registered on February 16, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Subjective risk perception and ambiguity for heatstroke
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013036
Initial registration date
February 14, 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 16, 2024, 4:08 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
Japan
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Masahide Watanabe
Affiliation
Ryukoku University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-02-20
End date
2024-02-27
Keywords
Behavior, Environment & Energy, Health
Additional Keywords
Subjective risk perception, Ambiguity
JEL code(s)
D81, I12
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We aim to elicit the participants’ subjective risk perceptions concerning heatstroke and related ambiguity under different preventive behaviors through a web survey. The sample will comprise people of various ages, genders, educational backgrounds, and income levels. We will examine how subjective risk perception of heatstroke and its ambiguity relate to preventive behaviors for heatstroke. Additionally, we will examine the heterogeneity of risk perception and its ambiguity among the participants.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Watanabe, Masahide. 2024. "Subjective risk perception and ambiguity for heatstroke." AEA RCT Registry. February 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13036-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Participants are randomly divided into two groups. Participants in both groups are first asked about their subjective risk perception of heatstroke (subjective probability) in the following year if they continue the current preventive behaviors for heatstroke and ambiguity about their subjective risk perception (measured as a range of subjective probability). Subsequently, we ask participants in one group about their risk perception and ambiguity if they engage in high-risk behaviors. Participants in the second group are asked about their risk perception and ambiguity if they engage in low-risk behaviors. Participants in both groups answer their risk perception and ambiguity using a visual linear scale format.
Intervention Start Date
2024-02-20
Intervention End Date
2024-02-27

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Subjective risk perception, Ambiguity of subjective risk perception, Preventive behaviors for heatstroke
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct a web survey using a panel owned by an Internet-based research company in Japan. Among the registered members, we limit our survey to people living in the twenty-three wards of Tokyo. The survey company randomly requests participation from registrants and accepts them on a first-come-first-serve basis. Before answering the survey, the participants are informed that it will take them 10–15 min to complete.

The web survey is conducted in three stages. The first part asks about participants’ experience and knowledge about heatstroke and their current preventive behaviors for heatstroke. The second part asks about the subjective risk perception (subjective probability) of suffering from heatstroke in the following year if they continue practicing current preventive behaviors. Subsequently, participants are asked whether they are sure of their subjective risk perceptions. Participants who are unsure of their risk perceptions are asked about their ambiguity (range of subjective probability). In addition, participants are asked about their subjective risk perception and related ambiguity if they engage in high-risk (or low-risk) preventive behaviors. The third part asks about demographic characteristics and administers a cognitive reflection test.

Participants are randomly divided into two groups.

Group 1: Participants are asked about subjective probability and its range if they engage in current preventive behaviors and high-risk behaviors using a visual linear scale format (N = 400).
Group 2: Participants are asked about subjective probability and its range if they engage in current preventive behaviors and low-risk behaviors using a visual linear scale format (N = 400).

Additionally, to check the validity of the elicitation method, we conduct a supplementary survey asking about the subjective risk perception and ambiguity using an open-ended format. We randomly divide the supplemental sample into two groups. Participants in one group are asked about the risk perception and ambiguity if they engage in current and high-risk behaviors, and those in the other group are asked about the risk perception and ambiguity if they engage in current and low-risk behaviors.

Participants in the supplementary survey are randomly divided into two groups.

Group s1: Participants are asked about subjective probability and its range if they engage in current preventive behavior and high-risk behavior using an open-ended format (N = 100).
Group s2: Participants are asked about subjective probability and its range if they engage in current preventive behavior and low-risk behavior using an open-ended format (N = 100).
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done in the web survey company using a computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
400 (Group 1), 400 (Group 2), 100 (Group s1), 100 (Group s2)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Institutional Review Board, Ryukoku University
IRB Approval Date
2023-11-06
IRB Approval Number
2023-35
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials