Discrimination in Finance

Last registered on December 20, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Discrimination in Finance
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014745
Initial registration date
December 19, 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
December 20, 2024, 2:56 PM EST

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

Last updated
December 20, 2024, 3:29 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE
PI Affiliation
Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE
PI Affiliation
Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE
PI Affiliation
The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-12-19
End date
2024-12-29
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In this project, we want to investigate the general perception of discrimination in financial services. In particular, we want to find out whether individuals anticipate disparate treatments and outcomes in financial advice situations and what they perceive to be the reason for this. To do so, we run an online survey (Prolific) in which we elicit individuals' experiences with financial advice, perceptions about potential or experienced discrimination, ideas of potentially underlying reasons, as well as strategies to avoid discrimination. While we focus on gender discrimination in financial advice situations, we also ask about discrimination in other domains and across alternative group attributes.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Balakina, Olga et al. 2024. "Discrimination in Finance." AEA RCT Registry. December 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14745-2.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We sequentially present four scenarios to participants: receiving financial advice, using the postal service, obtaining services at a car repair shop, and gaining admission to a nightclub. In each scenario, participants are shown five avatars: their avatar plus two pairs representing different-gender fraternal twins—two women and two men—split between two racial groups, with two Black and two White individuals. Participants are asked to assess whether they believe the price and quality of the services would vary based on the avatars in each scenario and to asses how different the prices and quality of the service would be between the avatars presented.
If participants indicate that they expect differences in price or quality, they are then asked to assign a rating from 0 to 100 to each avatar to gauge the perceived price/quality of the services each would receive. Questions regarding price and quality are posed separately.
To introduce variability, we randomly alter the sets of twin-avatars across participants and the sequence of scenarios for each participant. Consequently, each participant encounters the same set of avatars, presented in a randomized order, across all scenarios.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-12-20
Intervention End Date
2024-12-23

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The following questions identify the outcome variables of interest for each situation:
Do you think that, if all five individuals were charged the same price, they would receive the same quality of service or do you think there would be differences in the quality of service they received? (They would all receive the same quality of service/They would receive different qualities of service.)
Please specify the qualities of service that you think the different clients would receive by dragging and dropping the avatars to the respective positions on the slider (0-100). This measure is considered both in absolute terms (for each avatar individually) and in relative terms (in comparison between avatars).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
The following questions identify the secondary outcomes for each respondent in each situation:
1. "If you were to use the postal service, what gender would you expect the postal worker to have?" and "Have you ever avoided using the postal service because you expected unfair treatment from the postal worker?"
The answers will indicate if participants expect discrimination and if it affects the demand for the service.
2. We ask participants to reflect on how different measure could affect their willingness to use financial advice services.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We run the survey, which consists of the following steps:
1. We ask participants for their consent to store their data;
2. In the set of questions, we ask participants to describe themselves by choosing an avatar with their features: skin tone, haircut or a hair accessory, facial hair, glasses or no glasses, and clothing;
3. We follow up with an intervention described above.
4. We asked respondents about the frequency and necessity of the service (all examples) and about their expectations of being discriminated against while getting the service.
5. We inquire about respondents' attitudes to financial advice and how different measures could make the experience of financial advice more pleasant/likely.
6. We finish with five financial literacy questions and questions on demographic characteristics.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Order of situation within a subject; Avatars presented to respondents between subjects
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
around 600 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
around 600 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
around 600 individuals
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Gemeinsame Ethikkommission Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt und der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
IRB Approval Date
2024-11-04
IRB Approval Number
N/A

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