Open- versus Closed-Ended Elicitation in Surveys and the Predictive Content of Stated Values: Evidence from Sustainable Retail Investing

Last registered on January 23, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Open- versus Closed-Ended Elicitation in Surveys and the Predictive Content of Stated Values: Evidence from Sustainable Retail Investing
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017723
Initial registration date
January 20, 2026

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
January 23, 2026, 7:46 AM EST

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

Locations

Country
Switzerland
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Tobias Wekhof
Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2021-10-29
End date
2021-11-14
Keywords
Behavior, Environment & Energy, Finance & Microfinance
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study examines how different survey question formats shape what people report as important, and how well those reports predict later decisions. Some surveys ask open-ended questions where respondents describe priorities in their own words, while others use checklists where respondents select items from a list. Using a randomized survey of retail investors in Switzerland, the study compares these two formats and evaluates how strongly stated priorities are reflected in a subsequent hypothetical investment choice that involves a tradeoff between sustainability and management fees.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Wekhof, Tobias. 2026. "Open- versus Closed-Ended Elicitation in Surveys and the Predictive Content of Stated Values: Evidence from Sustainable Retail Investing." AEA RCT Registry. January 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17723-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2021-10-29
Intervention End Date
2021-11-14

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Value–action gap for sustainability:
The share of respondents who state that sustainability is important but do not choose the sustainable investment option in the subsequent choice task.

Value–action gap for management fees:
The share of respondents who state that low fees are important but do not choose the low-fee investment option in the subsequent choice task.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants complete a survey with two formats of value elicitation: an open-ended question (respondents describe investment priorities in their own words) and a closed-ended checklist (respondents select relevant priorities from a list). The order of these two formats is randomized across participants. The treatment group first answered the closed-ended question and then the open-ended question (i.e., the respondents were made aware of the different options from the closed-ended question). The second treatment arm (control) first answered the open-ended question and then the closed-ended question (i.e., these respondents were not aware of the closed-ended options when answering the open-ended question). After the value elicitation, respondents complete a hypothetical investment choice between two portfolios that differ in sustainability characteristics and management fees. The study compares how responses differ across question formats and how well each format predicts the subsequent choice.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
no clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
3059
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Arm 1 (open-ended first, control): 1565
Arm 2 (closed-ended first, treatment): 1494
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
November 14, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
November 14, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Arm 1 (open-ended first): 1565
Arm 2 (closed-ended first): 1494
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
3059 individuals
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

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

Request Information

Program Files

Program Files
No
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials