Upholding a Good Image: Selective Country Comparisons in the Media

Last registered on November 15, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Upholding a Good Image: Selective Country Comparisons in the Media
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014795
Initial registration date
November 15, 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
November 15, 2024, 2:15 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Lara Marie Berger
Affiliation
University of Cologne
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Gönül Doğan
PI Affiliation
University of Cologne
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Louis Strang
PI Affiliation
University of Cologne
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-11-18
End date
2024-12-15
Keywords
Behavior, Other
Additional Keywords
Media
JEL code(s)
D83, L82, C91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We run an experiment to investigate whether German journalists have a home country bias when covering a global issue, namely, environmental performance. In the experiment, they generate headlines that make comparisons between either Germany and 10 other countries or France and 10 other countries. We additionally vary the audience of the headline, either German readers or French readers. Participants choose the comparison countries from a list containing a performance ranking in three different environmental metrics. We will compare the countries chosen across the treatments to document the extent of the bias as well as to test whether the bias is demand driven.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Berger, Lara Marie, Gönül Doğan and Louis Strang. 2024. "Upholding a Good Image: Selective Country Comparisons in the Media." AEA RCT Registry. November 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14795-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We randomly assign participants to three groups in a between-subjects design. Between groups, we vary the fixed country (either Germany or France) and the targeted readers of the headlines (German or French). We randomly assign the following groups:

• Germany_German-Readers: Participants have to compare countries to Germany and write headlines for German readers.
• Germany_French-Readers: Participants have to compare countries to Germany and write headlines for French readers.
• France_German-Readers: Participants have to compare countries to France and write headlines for German readers.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-11-18
Intervention End Date
2024-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
subjects’ choice of comparison countries
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
we elicit the choice of comparison countries via a choice from a list of countries and also via a headline that journalists have to write

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
• Demographics: age, gender, residence, education
• Political preferences
• National pride measure
• Type of occupation
• Beliefs about Germany’s performance during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, 2021 and 2022 regarding COVID-related deaths per capita
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants are recruited among German journalists who are either members of the professional association Journalistenzentrum Deutschland e.V., alumni of Cologne Journalism School or alumni of a journalism degree at University of Dortmund. They are approached via an email which is scheduled to be send out in November 2024.

In the main decision, participants have to compare a fixed country to another country, which they have to choose from a list. The list comprises ten countries, five that perform better than the fixed country and five that perform worse in the respective dimension. Subsequently, they are asked to provide a headline for a newspaper that compares the two countries, the fixed one and the selected comparison country. Participants face three decisions, where they have to select a different country in each decision. All three comparisons are in the realm of environmental protection. We use the Environmental Performance Index 2024 (Block et al. 2024) to construct the list of comparison countries. The selected dimensions are anthropogenic PM2.5 exposure, CO exposure, and projected emissions in 2050.

In a subsequent elicitation, the headlines are presented to another set of participants, the ‘readers’, who are recruited via Prolific. Their sole task is to rate these headlines on how likely it is that they would read the whole article. The participants of the main experiment who wrote the best-rated headlines then receive a bonus.

We hypothesize the following results:

H1: When Germany is compared to other countries, that is, in treatment groups 1 and 2, average performance of the comparison countries relative to Germany is negative.

H2: Countries that do better than Germany are more likely to be chosen for a French audience (treatment 2) compared to a German audience (treatment 1).

H3: When France is compared to other countries for a German audience (treatment 3), better performing countries are more likely to be chosen compared to when Germany is compared to other countries for a German audience (treatment 1).

See the Pre-Analysis plan for a description of our planned statistical analyses.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
240. We will end data collection either after 240 observations have been reached or the 15th of December 2024 has passed.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
3 randomly assigned groups with 80 participants each
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Ethics Review of the Faculty of Management, Economics, and Social Sciences at University of Cologne
IRB Approval Date
2024-11-13
IRB Approval Number
240062LB
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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