The willingness to condemn workplace sexual harassment: An experimental investigation

Last registered on December 26, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The willingness to condemn workplace sexual harassment: An experimental investigation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017468
Initial registration date
December 15, 2025

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 26, 2025, 2:23 AM EST

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Warwick

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Warwick
PI Affiliation
University of Warwick

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-12-16
End date
2026-04-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
More information will be provided after the completion of the RCT.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bhalotra, Sonia , Matthew Ridley and Mateusz Stalinski. 2025. "The willingness to condemn workplace sexual harassment: An experimental investigation ." AEA RCT Registry. December 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17468-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Information on the intervention is hidden until the end of the trial.
Intervention Start Date
2025-12-16
Intervention End Date
2026-04-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Workplace consequences for the man

2. Monetary sacrifice to punish the man

3. Index of willingness to condemn the man’s behaviour

We will analyze heterogeneity of the treatment effects by the following characteristics of the respondent: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) political affiliation, (d) an index of traditional gender norms, (e) an index of masculinity, and (f) full time employment.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Re Outcome 1: We use the following question to elicit this outcome.

Imagine you are a colleague of the same seniority as the man, and you witnessed the above interaction. What consequences should the man face? Pick an option that best represents your view.
- No consequences
- Be required to attend mediation with the woman
- Receive a formal warning and be required to attend additional training on workplace conduct
- Be fired

Moreover, at the end of the survey, we ask participants to rank these consequences from least severe (1) to most severe (4). For each video-person pair, we will code the severity of the consequence that the participant selected according to their own ranking.

Re Outcome 2: Each participant is asked if they would be willing to give up their $1 bonus payment to prevent a person who admitted to or was accused of behaving in a way similar to what is described in the video from getting a $1 bonus. The choice is implemented for one of the videos in the survey, the one which describes behavior that someone else who took our survey either admitted to committing or was accused of. Participants do not know which video describes a real person. They make a hypothetical decision for each of the videos, and one of them (related to a real person) is actually implemented.

Re Outcome 3: We will compute an inverse-covariance-weighted index of willingness to condemn based on three outcomes: workplace consequences for the man (primary outcome 1), monetary sacrifice to punish the man (primary outcome 2), and general assessment of the man’s behavior (secondary outcome 1, defined below).

To construct the index we will follow the steps described in the paper “Multiple inference and gender differences in the effects of early intervention: A reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects.” by Anderson (2008), Journal of the American Statistical Association.

Re Heterogeneity:

(a) For heterogeneity by gender, we will use the following question.

What is your gender?
- Female
- Male
- Non-binary
- Other (please describe if you wish)
- I'd prefer not to answer

We will create an indicator variable for whether a participant selected “Male”. We will report heterogeneity of the treatment effects with respect to that indicator variable.

(b) For heterogeneity by age, we will compare the effects for individuals with above/below median age.

(c) For heterogeneity by political affiliation, we will use the following question.

Which of the following best describes your political view?
- Republican Party
- Democratic Party
- Independent
- I'd prefer not to answer

(d) We will compare the effects for individuals with above vs. below median values of an inverse-covariance-weighted index (Anderson, 2008) of traditional gender norms. The following questions are used to construct the index.

How do you feel about the following statements? Do you agree or disagree with them? [Answers are on a five point scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree]
- All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job
- A husband's job is to earn money, a wife's job is to look after the home and family
- Both the husband and wife should contribute to the household income

(e) We will compare the effects for individuals with above vs. below median values of an inverse-covariance-weighted index (Anderson, 2008) of masculinity. The following questions are used to construct the index.

[Answers are on a five point scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree]
- Winning is the most important thing
- Sometimes violent action is necessary
- It bothers me when I have to ask for help
- I love it when men are in charge of women
- It is important to me that people think I am heterosexual

This analysis will be performed for male respondents only.

(f) We will use answers to the Prolific pre-screener question on whether an individual is in full time employment or not.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1. General assessment of the man’s behavior

2. Beliefs about others’ decisions on consequences for the man

3. Workplace support for the woman

4. Punishment for leniency (dictator game split)

We will analyze heterogeneity of the treatment effects by the same characteristics as for the primary outcomes.

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Re Outcome 1: We use the following question to elicit this outcome.

On a scale from 0 to 10, how badly has the man behaved? [slider, with 0 = He did nothing wrong and 10 = The worst behavior you can imagine]

Re Outcome 2: We use the following question to elicit this outcome.

What percentage of participants who watched this video do you believe selected each of the following options as consequences for the man? If your estimate for a category is within +/- 2 percent of the actual answer, you will earn an additional $0.20 for that category.
- No consequences
- Be required to attend mediation with the woman
- Receive a formal warning and be required to attend additional training on workplace conduct
- Be fired

Similarly to primary outcome 1, we will also compute a measure where for each video-person pair, we will apply weights to the predicted shares that correspond to the participant’s own ranking of severity of the consequences

Re Outcome 3: We use the following question to elicit this outcome.

What do you think should happen to the woman? Pick an option that best represents your view.
-The woman should be moved to another team (or workplace)
- The woman should be paid a reasonable sum to sign an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) and leave the firm
- The woman should be offered support, paid leave and compensation
- The woman should be told to conduct herself more professionally in the future
- No action needs to be taken
- The woman should receive acknowledgement, an apology and assurance that the occurrence will not be repeated

Moreover, at the end of the survey, we ask participants to rank these consequences from the least supportive (1) to the most supportive (6). For each video-person pair, we will code the level of support that the participant selected according to their own ranking.

Re Outcome 4: This outcome is elicited for individuals who receive the supplementary intervention as described in EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. We use the following question to elicit the outcome.

Use the form below to split the money between yourself and the person you were matched with in any way you want. Put the number of dollars you wish to keep in the box labeled "For you". Put the dollars you wish to go to the other person in the box labeled "For the other person". Note that the two amounts must add up to $1.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Information on the experimental design is hidden until the end of the trial.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Qualtrics randomization + JavaScript randomization in Qualtrics (for video attributes)
Randomization Unit
Video attribute level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A

Sample size: planned number of observations
As explained in EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, the sample size is calibrated such that each of the 2,352 videos (with its unique set of attributes) will be watched, in expectation, by 20 individuals. Given that each person watched 8 videos, this requires recruiting 5,880 people. The total number of observations (video-by-individual pairs) is 47,040.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We have 5,880 people overall who view 8 videos each. Our treatments (attributes of the interaction) are randomized at the video level, independently across people, such that each combination of attributes is equally likely to be picked. Therefore, the number of people exposed to a treatment – for instance, the number of people who are shown at least one video with a given severity – is a random variable.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, University of Warwick
IRB Approval Date
2024-09-17
IRB Approval Number
HSSREC 01/24-25