Life Expectancy, Intragenerational Redistribution, and the Alienation Effect: An Experimental Study with and without a Veil of Ignorance

Last registered on April 14, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Life Expectancy, Intragenerational Redistribution, and the Alienation Effect: An Experimental Study with and without a Veil of Ignorance
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018304
Initial registration date
April 09, 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 14, 2026, 8:57 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität
PI Affiliation
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-04-22
End date
2026-06-22
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Differences in life expectancy related to socio-economic status have a regressive redistributive effect on defined-contribution pension systems, whereby short-lived low-income groups subsidize the pensions of long-lived high-income groups. Krieger et al. (2025) demonstrate in an experiment that confronting individuals with income-dependent differences in mortality under the assumption of a veil of ignorance (VOI) reduces preferences for redistribution when redistribution involves an efficiency loss (“leaky bucket”). They refer to this phenomenon as the “alienation effect.” This study replicates and extends their experiment using a 2×2 between-subjects design with 120 participants, systematically varying the factors of positional knowledge (with and without VOI) and mortality risk structure (symmetric and asymmetric with a “leaky bucket” mechanism). The goal of the present study is to determine whether the alienation effect occurs even when income positions are known, and whether it is stronger or weaker than when distribution decisions are made from under a VOI.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Meemann, Christine, Fabian Rikker and Stefan Traub. 2026. "Life Expectancy, Intragenerational Redistribution, and the Alienation Effect: An Experimental Study with and without a Veil of Ignorance." AEA RCT Registry. April 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18304-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Participants are randomly assigned to one of four between-subjects treatments, which are explained below. They are then randomly assigned to groups of five. They are presented with a table containing five income levels (A through E), each associated with pension entitlements and corresponding work contributions. Using a slider to adjust a redistribution parameter lambda, they must then decide how much they want to redistribute the entitlements, where lambda=0 means no intragenerational redistribution and lambda=100 means an egalitarian distribution. There are 4 rounds per group, in which the variance and mean of the entitlements and pension payouts, respectively, are varied. At the end, the group median of lambda from one of the four rounds determines the actual redistribution or the payouts. Before participants receive the payout corresponding to their income position, they must perform a real-effort task (slider task) in accordance with the specifications in the table (higher income positions involve more sliders). Additionally, there is a certain probability that one of the group members will not receive a payout even though the task was completed (this simulates the mortality risk of the insured in a pension plan).

The four treatment variations are:
T1 Equal Risk with VOI
In T1, participants do not know their income rank within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, the probability of receiving no payout is the same for all group members (20%).

T2 Asymmetric Risk with VOI
In T2, participants do not know their income position within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, while the probability of receiving no payout is also 20% on average, it is lower for group members with higher entitlements (A: 33, B: 27, C: 20, D: 13, E: 7)%, with A having the lowest entitlement and E the highest.

T3 Equal Risk w/o VOI
In T3, participants know their income rank within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, the probability of receiving no payout is the same for all group members (20%).

T4 Asymmetric Risk w/o VOI
In T4, participants know their income position within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, while the probability of receiving no payout is also 20% on average, it is lower for group members with higher entitlements (A: 33, B: 27, C: 20, D: 13, E: 7)%, with A having the lowest entitlement and E the highest.





Intervention Start Date
2026-04-22
Intervention End Date
2026-06-22

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Of primary interest is the redistribution parameter lambda. We assume that the lambda is influenced by both the distribution of risk and the VOI.

We assume that with an asymmetric distribution of risk, there is less redistribution than with a symmetric distribution.
H1: Alienation Effect
a) lambda(T1)>lambda(T2)
b) lambda(T3)>lambda(T4)

Furthermore, we assume that the VOI plays no role in the alienation effect.
H2: Alienation Effect and VOI
lambda(T1)-lambda(T2)=lambda(T3)-lambda(T4)



Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We are also interested in how lambda correlates with various justice preferences and beliefs (e.g., belief in a just world, blaming the victim, belief in luck versus effort) in order to draw conclusions about psychological mechanisms.

We assume that greater belief in justice and personal responsibility leads to a stronger alienation effect. (Correlational Hypothesis)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment replicates and extends the design by Krieger, Meemann and Traub (2025, JEBO).

1. Participants are randomly assigned to one of four between-subjects treatments, which are explained below. T1 and T2 replicate treatments ER and SRL from Krieger et al. (2025).
2. After having been assigned to a treatment, participants are randomly assigned to groups of five. They are presented with a table containing five income levels (A through E), each associated with pension entitlements and corresponding work contributions (sliders to be solved in a real-effort slider task, Gil and Prowse (2012, AER).
3. Using a slider to adjust a redistribution parameter lambda, they must then decide how much they want to redistribute the entitlements, where lambda=0 means no intragenerational redistribution and lambda=100 means an egalitarian distribution.
4. There are 4 rounds per group, in which the variance and mean of the entitlements and pension payouts, respectively, are varied (the numbers are taken from Krieger et al. (2025).
5. At the end, the group median of lambda from one of the four rounds determines the actual redistribution or the payouts.
6. However, before participants receive the payout corresponding to their income position, they must perform a real-effort task (slider task) in accordance with the specifications in the table (higher income positions involve more sliders).
7. Additionally, there is a certain probability that one of the group members will not receive a payout even though the task was completed (this simulates the mortality risk of the insured in a pension plan).
8. After the main task, we collect additional data on their risk and social preferences, their beliefs and justice perceptions.

The four treatment variations are:
T1 Equal Risk with VOI [ER in Krieger et al. 2025]
In T1, participants do not know their income rank within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, the probability of receiving no payout is the same for all group members (20%).

T2 Asymmetric Risk with VOI [SRL in Krieger et al. 2025]
In T2, participants do not know their income position within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, while the probability of receiving no payout is also 20% on average, it is lower for group members with higher entitlements (A: 33, B: 27, C: 20, D: 13, E: 7)%, with A having the lowest entitlement and E the highest.

T3 Equal Risk w/o VOI
In T3, participants know their income rank within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, the probability of receiving no payout is the same for all group members (20%).

T4 Asymmetric Risk w/o VOI
In T4, participants know their income position within the group before they set the redistribution parameter lambda. Furthermore, while the probability of receiving no payout is also 20% on average, it is lower for group members with higher entitlements (A: 33, B: 27, C: 20, D: 13, E: 7)%, with A having the lowest entitlement and E the highest.

An important note is that redistribution in T2 and T4 (with asymmetric risk) involves an efficiency loss which is due to the higer risk assigned to the lower income positions. Krieger et al. (2025) show that the alienation effect is due to the efficiency loss and that the alienation effect is correlated with certain justice beliefs and perceptions.

A technical note is that the experiment is conducted individually, and the actual group matching (Step 2) takes place only ex post, that is, after all data has been collected. Consequently, participants selected for payout will not receive their payouts until after the entire experiment has concluded.

In addition, participants are informed at the outset that, according to the random lottery incentive system, only about one in five participants will be selected for payout at the end. For these selected participants, the above payout mechanism is then applied, i.e., the group lambda, their own position, and the probability of default, and the conversion rate from Tokens to Euros determine the payout in Euros.

Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization by computer (treatment, group, income position, default).
Randomization Unit
Individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
no clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
120 participants, mainly students from Helmut-Schmidt-University
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
30 participants per treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
26 participants per treatment are required for a power of 0,8 given the effect size of Krieger, Meemann and Traub (2025, JEBO).
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
German Association for Experimental Economic Research
IRB Approval Date
2026-04-08
IRB Approval Number
AJEhgP7d