Intervention (Hidden)
The survey has the following structure.
Stage 1: Opening statement, view on social inequality, the relevance of information and perceptions about the degree of informedness of the population. The survey opens with a neutral opening statement about social inequality. The opening statement is shown to all experimental groups alike and reads as follows:
“We would now like to hear your opinion on the topic of social inequality. By this we mean, for example, differences in income, educational attainment and wealth between different social groups.”
Stage 1 information are shown to all respondents, irrespective of experimental group.
Respondents then asked to state their view on the relevance of social inequality and to give their views on the relevance of information provision for political decision-making, and on how well-informed they perceive the average citizen, and themselves, to be.
Stage 2: Prior beliefs about the effect of inequality information on preferences for redistribution (treatment group 1) and the polarization of preferences (treatment group 2). Stage 2 starts with a neutral opening statement, informing respondents that we would like to ask their opinion on the results of scientific studies. We will use these studies for the information treatments. We then ask respondents to indicate their prior beliefs about how information on inequality influences the demand for redistribution and polarization among the general public on average.
Stage 3: Randomized information provision
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 1: Control group: No information provided
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 2: Treatment 1: “Important information! A scientific overview study by Marino et al. (2024) shows: In 63% of cases, the provision of information about inequality has no influence on the average approval of state redistribution. Your estimate <<Your Choice>> % vs. actual value: 63%”
Additional bar chart with the elicited vs. the true value in different colors.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 3: Treatment 2: “Important information! A scientific overview study by Marino et al. (2024) shows: In 78% of cases, the provision of information on inequality has no influence on existing differences of opinion on state redistribution. Your estimate was <<Your Choice>> % vs. actual value: 78%”
Additional bar chart with the elicited vs. the true value in different colors.
Stage 4: Posterior beliefs. Items are shown to all respondents, irrespective of experimental group. We show two questions asking for personal assessment of the actual influence of information about social inequality on the support for state redistribution and on polarization concerning state redistribution.
Stage 5: Outcome measures. Items are shown to all respondents, irrespective of experimental group. We show questions asking for: (1) support for information about social inequality, (2) importance of scientific information, (3) willigness to inform the general public, (4) willigness to inform oneself, (5) preferences for public policy measures with respect to the degree of regulation and freedom
Stage 6: Follow-up survey. Items are shown to all respondents, irrespective of experimental group. A few days after the main survey, respondents that gave their consent are invited to participate in a follow-up survey. In the wording, the follow-up is not explicitly referring to the main survey conducted a few days earlier but intentionally held neutral. After a brief introduction, we ask questions on gender, age and state of residence to check for consistency and start the survey. We then repeat stage 4 on posterior beliefs. We then ask the following outcome questions again: (1) support for information about social inequality, (5) preferences for different public policy measures with respect to the degree of regulation and freedom.