Social movements and preferences for redistribution

Last registered on June 24, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Social movements and preferences for redistribution
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013740
Initial registration date
June 03, 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
June 24, 2024, 12:08 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Bruno Martorano
Affiliation
Maastricht University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Francesco Iacoella
PI Affiliation
UNICEF
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Laura Metzger
PI Affiliation
Radboud University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Patricia Justino
PI Affiliation
UNU-WIDER
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2022-07-15
End date
2022-07-30
Keywords
Behavior, Governance
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate whether online exposure to social movements campaigning against income and gender inequality affects preferences for redistribution and political behavior. We conducted a large representative online experiment randomizing participants into three groups: two treatments and a control group. The first treatment group was asked to follow a Facebook page created by the authors and re-posting content on income inequality from the pages of social movements. The second treatment group was asked to complete a similar task to one of the first treatment group, but with a Facebook page re-posting content on income and gender inequality. Our results show that exposure to social movements` campaigns against inequalities shapes preferences for redistribution by raising the consensus that government intervention should be directed toward reducing inequalities. Individuals exposed to information on income inequality would allocate significantly more resources toward fighting income inequality, while those exposed to information on gender inequality would allocate significantly more resources to fighting gender inequality. We also show that exposure to social movements increases democratic participation by appealing to the government for political reforms.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Iacoella, Francesco et al. 2024. "Social movements and preferences for redistribution." AEA RCT Registry. June 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13740-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We conducted a representative online experiment between June and July 2022, with 1,436 participants from the UK where we exogenously vary individual exposure to information about income and gender-specific income inequality in the UK which we obtain from social movement campaigns.
Intervention Start Date
2022-07-15
Intervention End Date
2022-07-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Political participation & private donation (behavioral outcomes): Petition with local MP (“You can now take action by signing a petition. We will submit a petition to a Member of Parliament who has been involved in the fight against inequality issues. We will not tell them your name, just how many people in our study support the petition. We will send you proof of the petition's submission in the next few weeks.” Respondents could choose one of three answers: (1) I want to sign a petition against inequalities; (2) I do not want to sign a petition against inequalities; (3) I never sign petitions.); Meeting a local MP to discuss inequality; Writing a letter to a local MP

Private donation (“In addition to payment for your participation, you now receive a bonus of 1 GBP from which you can make a donation to a well-established charity that fights to reduce inequalities in the UK. We will provide you with a link to the charity at the end of the survey and in a few weeks you will receive proof of the total amount donated to the charity. The total amount equals the sum of all donations made by participants in this survey. If you choose not to donate, you will receive the entire bonus amount after completing this study. How much of your 1 GBP bonus would you like to donate?”. Participants could choose one of 21 options from 0 to 1 GBP.)

Preferences for redistribution: Spending for economic development; Spending for gender equality; Spending for reducing differences between poor and rich; Taxation of richer households; “The government should implement policies to reduce differences in income levels”? Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Beliefs about inequality:

a) Differences in income between the poor and the rich in the UK are too large;
b) Differences in income between men and women in the UK are too large;
c) Income gaps between the poor and the rich in the UK are inevitable;
d) Income gaps between men and women in the UK are inevitable;
They were also asked three additional questions about fairness and their views about inequalities:
e) How fair do you think is society in the UK? Range: 1 (Very Fair) to 5 (Very Unfair);
f) Do you think differences in income levels between the rich and the poor are a serious problem in the UK? – Range: 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitively yes)
g) Do you think differences in income levels between women and men are a serious problem in the UK? – Range: 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitively yes)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The baseline survey collected information on the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the participants as well as their opinions on government, politics, and societal issues in the UK. At the end of the baseline survey, individuals were assigned into three groups: a control group, which was asked to follow a Facebook page providing information on weather forecasts; a first treatment group, which was asked to follow a Facebook page created by the authors and re-posting content on income inequality from the pages of social movements in the UK; and a second treatment group, which was asked to complete a similar task to the one of the first treatment group but with a Facebook page re-posting content on income and gender inequality. All information, data, or videos posted on the two Facebook pages are real, accurate, and originate from verified social movement organizations and journalistic sources
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization was done at the individual participant level, using the randomizer function built into the survey software Qualtrics.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Individual level randomization (no clustering)
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,436 online participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1,436 online participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethical Review Committee Inner City Faculties, Maastricht University
IRB Approval Date
2022-03-17
IRB Approval Number
ERCIC_326_16_02_2022
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