Validation of a survey instrument for norm elicitation in discrimination studies

Last registered on April 16, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Validation of a survey instrument for norm elicitation in discrimination studies
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013361
Initial registration date
April 12, 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
April 16, 2024, 3:17 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Spanish National Research Council
PI Affiliation
University of Newcastle

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-04-15
End date
2024-10-15
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In a previous experimental study, we documented that social norms in discrimination games vary by social context. In particular, we show that participants rate in-group favouritism as more or less socially appropriate based on the social identity that is in play. Participants perceived it to be more socially inappropriate to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation than on the basis of political identity. The study included also a behavioural task that showed an alignment between social norms and behaviours. Participants opted for decisions that favoured their in-groups more frequently in the social contexts where those decisions were regarded as more socially appropriate. This study was carried out in experimental laboratories in the UK and Spain between 2022 and 2023.

Here, we present a research design to validate a survey instrument that would allow us to explore similar questions using survey research instead of standard laboratory experiments. For that, we plan to repeat the experiment under the same conditions and compare the results of elicited norms with a survey implemented in the lab. Additionally, once validated in the lab, we will implement our instrument in a large-sample survey within an online panel. Our hypothesis is that participants will rate in-group favouritism differently in different contexts of social identity, regardless of the research instrument employed. Moreover, we hypothesise that the rankings of appropriateness of discrimination in different social contexts will be the same across experimental modes
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Lane, Tom, Luis Miller and Isabel Rodríguez Marín. 2024. "Validation of a survey instrument for norm elicitation in discrimination studies." AEA RCT Registry. April 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13361-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We will recruit participants based on relevant characteristics and invite them to the experimental sessions. In the experiment, we will bring up one of these characteristics in order to elicit one dimension of their identity. After this priming, participants will carry out a norm-elicitation task.
Intervention (Hidden)
Participants will be selected based on their relevant social identities and randomly assigned to one of the experimental modes (behavioural experiment vs. survey). The two modes are described below.
The behavioural experiment consists of two tasks. In the decision-making phase of the experiment, we use a standard allocator game in which participants distribute 16 monetary units between two passive recipients, one an individual sharing their primed identity (in-group), the other an individual not sharing their identity (out-group). They can distribute the money between the two passive players however they like, as long as it is in multiples of two. Discrimination is defined as the extent to which individuals are willing to favour members of their own social group at the expense of the out-group. Allocators will receive a fee between 6 or 10 euros randomly selected by the computer at the end of the experiment. On the other hand, social appropriateness is measured using the Krupka-Weber norm elicitation task. Participants are asked to evaluate each of the 9 possible distribution outcomes of the allocator game as: "Very socially appropriate", "Somewhat socially appropriate", "Somewhat socially inappropriate" and "Very socially inappropriate". To ensure that participants aim at capturing social evaluation rather than their own opinion, incentives in this task are provided if their rates match those of another randomly selected participant.
The survey experiment consists of a vignette that briefly describes a ‘real situation from a previous study’. The situation described is the allocation task from the behavioural experiments, in which one subject has to decide how to allocate money between another in-group participant and an out-group participant. Then, subjects answering the survey will rate the possible decisions that the participants in the behavioural tasks could make as: "Very socially appropriate", "Somewhat socially appropriate", "Somewhat socially inappropriate" and "Very socially inappropriate". This question will not be incentivised. Participants will always have to evaluate the decisions of another participant with whom they share a social identity, as was the case of the norm-elicitation task of the behavioural experiment. Once the vignette instrument is validated in the lab, we will not force the social identification of respondents in the large-sample online survey.
Intervention Start Date
2024-04-16
Intervention End Date
2024-06-16

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Evaluations of social appropriateness from the norm-elicitation task in the laboratory mode (outcomes type 1-lab) and from the vignette in the survey mode (outcomes type 2-survey).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The dimension of identity that is primed in every experimental session is varied exogenously, constituting our main treatment. The sessions will be carried out using two different research instruments (a behavioural experiment and a survey), forming two distinctive experimental modes.
Experimental Design Details
Participants in the laboratory will be randomly assigned to one of the experimental modes (behavioural experiment vs. survey). In each mode, participants will also be primed to think about particular dimensions of their identities. In particular, we will have their political affiliation, their religious beliefs and their preferred football team from a pre-survey carried out a few weeks before the experiment. Then, in the behavioural experiment, we will remind them of their identification with one particular side (PP vs. PSOE, catholic vs. non-believer, or Real Madrid vs. Barça). This priming aims to trigger a process of social identification by encouraging subjects to identify with some participants in their experimental session and not with others. In the survey sessions, the priming is more subtle, as we will only ask participants to rate the decisions of another participant with whom they share one social identity, with the goal of making salient a particular social context. The dimension of identity that is made salient is varied exogenously between partisanship, religious affiliation and football team. This variation constitutes our main treatment (within experimental mode).
In terms of the perceived appropriateness of discrimination across social contexts, we believe that participants will rate it as more socially inappropriate to discriminate on the basis of religion than on political identities. We also hypothesise that discrimination will be regarded as more socially inappropriate in the case of religious affiliation than in sports identities. On the other hand, our third hypothesis is that discrimination based on partisanship will be better regarded than that based on sports groups, as social norms might not only be absent but even promote a certain degree of favouring the in-group in that case. Additionally, we hypothesise that participants will behave according to referred social norms when presented with the allocation task in the behavioural experiment.
Moreover, we hypothesise that these results will be sustained across experimental mode, meaning regardless of the research instrument employed.
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Experimental session
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
6 experimental sessions
Sample size: planned number of observations
360 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
360 participants: 60 per session, 180 per experimental mode (vignette vs behavioural experiment)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number

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