Reaction to Discrimination: Norms

Last registered on February 23, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Reaction to Discrimination: Norms
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017890
Initial registration date
February 13, 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
February 23, 2026, 11:01 AM 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
Vojtech Bartos
Affiliation
University of Milan
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Mara Pasquamaria Squicciarini
PI Affiliation
Università Bocconi
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Andrea Guariso
PI Affiliation
University of Milan - Bicocca
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Paolo Masella
PI Affiliation
University of Bologna
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Gianandrea Lanzara
PI Affiliation
University of Bologna
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Augusto Milani
PI Affiliation
Toulouse School of Economics
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-02-13
End date
2026-02-28
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
Discrimination, Social norms
JEL code(s)
J15, C90, D91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In this trial, we aim to measure the social norms associated with the choice sets of two experimental games. The first is a modified Dictator Game, while the second is a novel "Complicity Game" that we have developed (pre-registered in the AEA RCT Registry, code AEARCTR-0015235). We elicit both injunctive norms and descriptive (or subjunctive) norms.

After presenting participants with the instructions for each game, we elicit normative expectations as follows: for injunctive norms, we ask respondents to evaluate each option available to the main decision-maker using a 4-point scale indicating how socially appropriate they believe the option to be. Respondents are asked to guess the modal response (“most frequently chosen answer for the selected choice by the other participants of this study”). For descriptive norms, we ask respondents to estimate how many out of 100 decision-makers they believe would choose each option.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bartos, Vojtech et al. 2026. "Reaction to Discrimination: Norms." AEA RCT Registry. February 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17890-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention: The interventions consist in two tasks: an incentivized task which asks for injunctive social norms about the options a decision maker had in an experimental game we are running; and an incentivized task which asks for descriptive social norms about the same game. We do fix the group membership of the players shown to respondents in the game scenarios to P1 White, P2 and P3 Black, rather than manipulating P3 identity as in the original study (AEARCTR-0015235).
Intervention Start Date
2026-02-13
Intervention End Date
2026-02-28

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
a) Injunctive norms: following Krupka and Weber (2013) framework, we assign a scoring to each choice on the ordinal scale and compare the distributions of responses. We compare means and variances across the two games.

b) Descriptive norms: we compare the distribution of responses: means and variances across the two games.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We exogenously vary the order of games considered in the task, so that each respondent gets either assigned to a dictator or to a complicity game first and the other one second. For both games, we collect answers regarding both the injunctive and the descriptive social norm.

We recruit participants via Prolific and restrict the sample to adult US residents.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
software-based randomization (Qualtrics)
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
1000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1000 individuals (manipulation within subject where around 500 individuals see the Dictator Game first, while the other 500 see the Complicity Game first)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We need about 972 observations (or 486 per group) to detect a 0.18 SD difference between the two games using a two-sample mean t-test at alpha=0.05 and beta=0.8. The planned sample size would allow us to detect such effects in a between subject design (focusing on first decisions only). In the full sample within subject design, we should be able to estimate effects of about 0.12 SD.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Bocconi Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2025-01-17
IRB Approval Number
RA000869
Analysis Plan