Attitudes towards social policy

Last registered on April 01, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Attitudes towards social policy
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018229
Initial registration date
March 27, 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
April 01, 2026, 10:11 AM EDT

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
Philipp Kugler
Affiliation
Institute for Applied Economic Research
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Martin Kroczek
PI Affiliation
Institute for Applied Economic Research
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Natalie Herdegen
PI Affiliation
Institute for Applied Economic Research
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-04-07
End date
2026-05-07
Keywords
Behavior, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
H53;H55;J65;D72
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We study the support for social policy reforms in three policy fields: retirement, unemployment support, and cash transfers to compensate for rising energy prices. We conduct factorial survey experiments to examine which reforms people prefer and through which mechanisms reform characteristics shape support. We focus on three dimensions of reforms characteristics: who benefits, the size of payments, and how reforms are financed.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Herdegen, Natalie , Martin Kroczek and Philipp Kugler. 2026. "Attitudes towards social policy." AEA RCT Registry. April 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18229-1.0
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 Start Date
2026-04-22
Intervention End Date
2026-05-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Support for social policy
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
perceived effectiveness, perceived efficiency, perceived fiscal consequences for the state, perceived distributional impacts, perceived financial impact on their own household
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
The list will potentially be updated after open ended question from pre study are analyzed-

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct two surveys that build on each other: a pre study and a main study (see figure 2). In both surveys, respondents are first randomly assigned to one of three social policy fields: (1) retirement, (2) unemployment, and (3) cash transfers to compensate for rising energy prices.

In the pre study, respondents are asked to indicate how much they support the reform on a scale from -5 to 5. To better understand how they reason, we include open-ended questions after respondents have rated all three vignettes, asking them which considerations matter most to them, what they see as the main problems of the current system, and what a good reform should look like in terms of its goals, beneficiaries, and financing. In the main study, respondents answer a set of closed-ended questions after each vignette on the reform’s perceived consequences. We ask them about the perceived effectiveness, perceived efficiency, perceived fiscal consequences for the state, and perceived distributional impacts, including the perceived financial impact on their own household. They then rate the reform on the same -5 to 5 scale. The closed-ended items are developed in two steps. We first draw on the economics literature and then refine and expand the item battery based on the answers to the open-ended questions in the pre study.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Individuals were randomly assigned by computer to receive one of three survey links, each containing a different policy field
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1500 individuals in pre study (500 per policy field), 4500 individuals in main study (1500 per policy field)
Sample size: planned number of observations
1500 individuals in pre study (500 per policy field), 4500 individuals in main study (1500 per policy field)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
4500 evaluated policy reform in pre study (1500 per policy field, 3 per individual), 10500 evaluated policy reform in main study (4500 per policy field, 3 per individual).

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethikkommission (SOWI) an der Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
IRB Approval Date
2026-03-17
IRB Approval Number
A2.5.4-474_hb
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information