Signals of Consent

Last registered on August 06, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Signals of Consent
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014123
Initial registration date
August 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
August 06, 2024, 3:59 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Lina Lozano
Affiliation
NYU Abu Dhabi
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Georgia Michailidou
PI Affiliation
NYU Abu Dhabi
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-08-12
End date
2024-11-30
Keywords
Behavior, Crime, Violence, & Conflict
Additional Keywords
Consent, Legal Framework, Yes means Yes, No means No
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Violations of sexual consent are painful for the victims and disturbing for society. While cases of assault and harassment present important variations, a common feature often emerges in courtrooms. A victim and an accused acknowledge that a sexual encounter took place, but they disagree on whether that was mutually consensual. Depending on the jurisdiction, two models are typically applied in rulings over such cases. One is the affirmative consent (“yes means yes”) model, the other is the negative consent (“no means no”) model. The two models overlap in that they both require a conscious expression of a signal; a yes or a no. However, they differ in how they treat the absence of a signal, i.e., in the role they assign to silence. While the affirmative model suggests that silence cannot be an indication of consent, the negative model proposes that silence is not an indication of withdrawn consent. To study the complexities of silence, we construct a theoretical and experimental paradigm where silence exists as a communication strategy between a consent giver and a consent taker. We extend the paradigm to consider environments similar to those produced by the affirmative and negative legal frameworks and we discuss their welfare implications considering consent violations, missed matches, and false accusations.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Michailidou, Georgia and Lina Lozano. 2024. "Signals of Consent." AEA RCT Registry. August 06. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14123-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-08-12
Intervention End Date
2024-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Whether people convey consent through explicit signal sending under YmY or NmN, (ii) whether silence is more often used to convey positive consent or negative consent, (iii) the interpretation of silence under each legal framework, (iv) the frequency of mismatches (i.e., cases where an Underperson and an Overperson end up in situations where their individual utilities are not maximized), and (v) how these first three points compare to the Baseline. We also compare the two court legislations by examining (i) the frequency with which the Underperson triggers a court case, (ii) the frequency of mismatches, (iii) the extent of signal violations by the Overperson and the Underperson's truthfulness in signal sending, and (iv) the welfare consequences in terms of monetary gains and losses.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
In the survey, we elicit (i) demographics (such as gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and education), and (ii) individuals' perceptions of risk, trust, competitiveness, and social preferences. We will engage in a heterogeneity analysis based on these characteristics.

We will also analyze whether behavior in the consent game correlates with individuals' views on dating, sexual, and consenting behaviors. Additionally, we will examine the social appropriateness of real-life sexual consenting situations and explore how these views relate to behavior in the consent game.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study involves an incentivized consent game where individuals express written consent to participate in a pleasant or unpleasant task. Expressing written consent incurs a cost, while remaining silent is cost-free. These tasks, involving viewing images from a validated psychological survey, are designed to evoke emotions similar to those felt when one's consent is regarded or disregarded. Two treatment variations will evaluate consent violations under “yes means yes” (YmY) and “no means no” (NmN) legal models, with outcomes reflected in monetary losses or gains. There are two players, an Underperson and an Overperson, who are randomly matched and given the same initial endowment. The game is one-shot, sequential, and the full set of payoffs is common knowledge. There are two possible states of the world: a pleasant or an unpleasant process for the Underperson. Only the Underperson knows the state, making this an asymmetric information game.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Players are randomly assigned by a computer to the role of either Underperson or Overperson. Within each role, they are further randomly assigned to one of three treatments: Baseline, Yes means Yes (YmY), or No means No (NmN).
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
6000 individuals (3000 Underperson and 3000 Overperson)
Sample size: planned number of observations
6000 individuals (3000 Underperson and 3000 Overperson)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
3000 Underperson and 3000 Overperson, where 1000 of each role are assigned to one of three treatments: Baseline, Yes means Yes (YmY), or No means No (NmN).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Our objective is to enlist around 3000 Underpersons and 3000 Overpersons equally divided into the three treatments, aiming for an effect size of approximately 0.2. We are striving for a targeted estimated power of 95\% at a significance level of 0.05 to test our primary hypotheses related to the frequency of staying in silence and enforcement of the processes conditional on the signal.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
NYUAD Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2024-04-04
IRB Approval Number
HRPP-2024-25
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information