Gender-neutral language, persuasion, and policy preferences II

Last registered on December 03, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender-neutral language, persuasion, and policy preferences II
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014931
Initial registration date
November 30, 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 03, 2024, 1:38 PM EST

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Thomas Fujiwara
Affiliation
Princeton University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Lucia Del Carpio
PI Affiliation
ITAM
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Carlos Sanz
PI Affiliation
Bank of Spain
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-12-02
End date
2025-07-15
Keywords
Behavior, Gender, Governance, Other
Additional Keywords
Policy preferences, policy support, gender-neutral language, inclusive language, persuasion.
JEL code(s)
P, Z13, J16
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This is a second pilot study for a project studying how inclusive language (particularly gender-neutral language) affects the persuasiveness of messages aiming to boost support for certain policies. The first pilot was registered as AEARCTR-0014012.

In Spanish, like many gendered-grammar languages spoken by 39% of the world population (Jakiela and Ozier, 2018), all nouns are assigned to a male or female gender. The traditional default is to use the masculine form as a “generic” when referring to an unspecified sex. A growing (and controversial) movement has challenged this norm, making it a political issue. For example, "employee" in Spanish is either the male noun "empleado" or the female noun "empleada," and historically there has been no word for a non-gendered "employee." Gender-neutral language in our context consists of stating "empleado o empleada" instead of only "empleado" when referring to an "employee.”

In an online survey in Spanish, Peruvian citizens will be provided with short briefs and policy proposals on two context-relevant topics: one related to social inclusion and diversity (bilingual education) and another related to a trade-off between environmental conservation and economic activity (mining). The research design cross-randomizes two aspects of the briefs and proposals that respondents see: i) whether the proposed policy is progressive (left-wing) or conservative (right-wing); and ii) whether gender-neutral language is used in the briefs.

This research design allows us to estimate the effect of gender-neutral language on the persuasiveness of the briefs (i.e., if using it makes the respondent more or less likely to support the proposal) separately for progressive and conservative messages and for each of the issues we study. For example, our design allows us to test if gender-neutral language makes a progressive (left-wing) message on an economic issue less persuasive, but would have smaller effects if the message was conservative or if it was about a social issue.

The research design also randomizes the salience and format of gender-neutral language (whether the respondent sees both proposals with gender-neutral language, both proposals without it, or one proposal with or without gender-neutral language).
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Del Carpio, Lucia, Thomas Fujiwara and Carlos Sanz. 2024. "Gender-neutral language, persuasion, and policy preferences II." AEA RCT Registry. December 03. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14931-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2024-12-02
Intervention End Date
2025-02-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our main outcome is whether the respondent is willing to provide a name for a potentially public online petition with text similar to the proposal she read.

We also will use an outcome whether the respondent states if she agrees with the proposal. We will allow three potential answers to this question (agree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
To study the intensive margin of agreement, we will also ask the respondents to rate their level of agreement on a 0-10 scale.

Moreover, after reading both proposals and answering the questions that generate the primary outcomes, respondents are asked two questions that can, presumably, be affected by the different treatments. These are support for the use of gender-neutral language and how credible/trustworthy they found the proposals shown to them.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
See "Experimental Design (Hidden)" field and the pre-analysis document.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
The Qualtrics platform will perform the randomization.
Randomization Unit
Randomization is at the "brief" level: each respondent sees two briefs (one on each topic). Each time a brief is shown to her, a variation of the brief of a given topic is chosen. The order of the topics of briefs shown is also randomly determined.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
4,500 respondents collected in two waves (design is not clustered)
Sample size: planned number of observations
4,500 respondents collected in two waves (design is not clustered)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
When a brief is shown to the respondent, there is a 25% probability it is assigned to each of the four previously discussed gender-neutral language arms. There is also a (independently and cross-randomized) 50%-50% chance the brief will have a "conservative" or "progressive" position on the topic. Which topic a respondent sees first is also randomized with a 50%-50% chance.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Princeton University
IRB Approval Date
2024-07-08
IRB Approval Number
16999
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information