Experimental Design Details
The experiment proceeds as follows;
1. A household survey will be conducted among the final sample of respondents. The conjoint experiment is positioned as the third section within the household survey, following the administrative module (enumerator details) and the respondent's background and skills section.
2. In the conjoint experiment segment, respondents will encounter pairs of communities randomly assembled from the six integration dimensions along with their corresponding sets of integration scenarios (referred to as community characteristics). Each community option represents a varying degree of integration within the refugee-host community, determined by the combination of community characteristics. Thus, each option includes randomly selected characteristics from all six integration dimensions. Here is an example illustrating how the community choices will be displayed to the respondents.
Community1 (more integrated)
(Location freedom) Refugees’ and hosts’ households living in a mixed setting in the same neighborhood.
(Political expression freedom) Refugees VOTE in local and national elections.
(Labour market freedom) Refugees work as employees and operate their own businesses.
(Integrated services) Refugees and hosts sharing schools, hospitals and water points.
(Cultural fluidity) Refugees and hosts can communicate in each other’s language.
(Citizenship) Refugees have national IDs and are no longer referred to as refugees.
Community2 (less integrated)
(Location freedom) Refugees’ households clustered together and separate from the hosts’ households in the same neighborhood.
(Political expression freedom) Refugees DO NOT VOTE in local and national elections. (Labour market freedom) Refugees ONLY work as employees but DO NOT operate their own businesses.
(Integrated services) Refugees and hosts having separate schools, hospitals and water points.
(Cultural fluidity) Refugees and hosts can ONLY communicate in the hosts’ language.
(Citizenship) Refugees have refugee IDs and will always be refugees.
3. The enumerator will proceed to show the images corresponding to the community scenarios outlined to the respondents, following the sequence of the community characteristics. This ensures that the respondent's comprehension of each community characteristic description is reinforced by a meticulously crafted visual depiction of the scenario.
4. Each respondent will be prompted to select one of the two community options provided to them, resulting in a choice outcome. Specifically, respondents will answer the question: “Imagine how refugee-host communities would look like. Next you will see two possible communities, Community 1 and 2. Look at the images and listen to their descriptions carefully. Which refugee-host community would you prefer living in?” A dummy variable is then generated, assigned a value of 1 for the chosen integration package/community and 0 for the other.
5. Respondents will make this choice for five rounds, with the characteristics of each community randomized within each integration dimension. However, to reduce survey fatigue, the sequence of integration dimensions remains consistent across the five rounds for each respondent. Nonetheless, the presentation order of integration dimensions is randomized between respondents to counteract any potential ordering effects.
6. In the rating-based conjoint, respondents will be instructed to assign a rating to each community option using a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represents "absolutely dislike" and 7 signifies "absolutely like." The specific question presented to respondents will be: "How would you rate each of these community options on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means 'you absolutely dislike' and 7 means 'you absolutely like'?" Respondents will be prompted to provide these ratings following each choice round, resulting in them rating the options five times in total.
7. The respondents will also be prompted to identify potential reasons for choosing one community over the other. Specifically, they will rate statements for the chosen community on a scale from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree): i) This community would be peaceful/safe, ii) It would be easy to work, start a business, or find a job in this community, iii) This community would have improved services, iv) Trust among members in this community would be high, and v) This community’s rules/laws would be inclusive/favorable for all. This step aims to elucidate the factors influencing respondents' choices.
8. Finally, the alignment of their preferences with their reality will be assessed by asking participants to compare the community options to their actual situation, responding to the question: "Which of these community options is closest to your current situation?"
9. Intergroup contact will be assessed in the fifth section of the survey, separate from the conjoint experiment section. This segment will focus on significant forms of interaction between different groups, considering both intensive and extensive aspects of social contact. Respondents will respond to a series of four questions: (1) Have you shared meals in your or their home with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [Yes, No] (2) How often, if at all, did you engage in casual conversations or chats with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [never, rarely, sometimes, often, everyday] (3) How often, if at all, did you engage in business exchanges (buying from or selling to) with a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [never, rarely, sometimes, often, everyday] (4) Have you worked with (as a colleague, employer, or employee of) a [Ugandan/Refugee] in the past month? [Yes, No]. These questions capture interactions within both the past month and the past 12 months, representing the intensive and extensive margins of intergroup interaction, respectively. The order of the questions will be randomized for each respondent. An aggregate score will be computed from the responses to categorize respondents into high-contact and low-contact groups.