Information Nudge on Social vs. Private Benefit, and Impact on Adaptation

Last registered on March 15, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Information Nudge on Social vs. Private Benefit, and Impact on Adaptation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013129
Initial registration date
March 04, 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
March 15, 2024, 3:04 PM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Yunyu Shu
Affiliation
Brown University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Jiayue Zhang
PI Affiliation
Brown University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Ming Li
PI Affiliation
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Jia Xiang
PI Affiliation
Indiana University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-01-29
End date
2025-06-15
Keywords
Agriculture, Environment & Energy, Lab
Additional Keywords
Information nudge, Climate Change, Social and Private Benefit
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study concerns the influence of information provision in boosting climate change adaptation behaviors. Specifically, we conduct a lab-in-the-field experiment among cocoa farmers in Ghana to compare the impact of different types and combinations of information regarding the benefits of shade trees on farmers’ shade management adoption decisions. We compare farmers’ responses to information on private benefits of shade trees with those to information emphasizing the social benefits; we explore whether providing social benefits in addition to private benefits can help or hurt tree planting based on farmers’ degree of altruism, intention of social signaling and free-riding incentives; we also ask whether providing private benefits on top of social benefits is valuable; lastly, we test whether cocoa farmers are more responsive when information includes both positive and downside aspects of growing shade trees, as opposed to cases where only the benefits of tree planting are highlighted. Our primary outcomes are farmers’ choice of the number of shade trees to grow on hypothetical lands in the game and sign-up decisions for free tree seedlings in the real Green Ghana Program.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Li, Ming et al. 2024. "Information Nudge on Social vs. Private Benefit, and Impact on Adaptation." AEA RCT Registry. March 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13129-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We conduct a lab-in-the-field experiment with hypothetical cocoa farming conditions. Farmers in the same treatment group and community are invited to participate in a lab session together. Each cocoa farmer will be invited to make tree-planting decisions in two games with initial token and harvest sales. Respondent compensation at the end of the lab depends on one of the two games’ remaining tokens, randomly selected.

The intervention is designed to investigate the impact of different types and combinations of information regarding the benefits of shade trees on farmers’ shade management adoption decisions. Farmers in each treatment group will receive different information delivered right before each game, in the form of pre-recorded videos. There are 5 treatment arms in total:

Control: Only information about climate change risks is offered. No additional information.

T1a: Additional information about the private benefit of shade trees and additional information about downside risks of too many shade trees before game 1; then information about the social benefit of shade trees before game 2.

T1b: Additional information about the private benefit of shade trees before game 1; then information about the social benefit of shade trees before game 2.

T2a: Additional information about the social benefit of shade trees before game 1; then information about the private benefit of shade trees and additional information about downside risks of too many shade trees before land game 2.

T2b: Additional information about the social benefit of shade trees before game 1; then information about the private benefit of shade trees and additional information before game 2.

In each community, We will hold 3 lab sessions (i.e., Control, T1, T2) with 10-16 participants each. We pool participants from T1a and T1b in the same lab session (T1) and those from T2a and T2b in the same lab session (T2). Participants will wear earphones when watching relevant information videos.
Intervention Start Date
2024-03-05
Intervention End Date
2024-06-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
• number of shade trees (forest and fruit) planted in each of the two games
• number of free shade tree seedlings signed up for in Green Ghana Program
• belief in shade tree benefit on cocoa farms
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We are also interested in potential mechanisms driving farmers’ decisions in the game, such as
• number of shade trees suggested to plant on a peer farmer’s land
• belief in shade tree externality on peer farmer’s land
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
A baseline survey was conducted from end-Janurary to February 2024, right after the cocoa main harvest season. The interventions (described in the Intervention section) using a lab-in-the-field design will be rolled out in March - April 2024. A follow-up survey is planned. We will track attrition along the process and use Lee bounds if attrition is imbalanced across treatment groups.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Computer software and simple lotteries
Randomization Unit
At the farmer level. We stratify our randomization by community, farmer age, education, and land size. There are 155 strata, as 5 cells are empty.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
788 farmers.
Sample size: planned number of observations
2 observations per farmer, 1576 observations at the land level in total
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
T1a: private +downside first, then social: 130 farmers
T1b: private first, then social: 131 farmers
T2a: social first, then private+downside: 139 farmers
T2b: social first, then private: 127 farmers
Control: 261 farmers
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Brown University
IRB Approval Date
2024-01-29
IRB Approval Number
2022003445
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information