|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
September 25, 2026 04:40 AM
|
After
September 28, 2026 03:41 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
See experimental design section.
|
After
See experimental design section.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Exposure to anti-hate crime legislation is a binary: participants in the control group are asked to read a dictionary and scientific definition of hate crime. Participants in the treatment group additionally read a text explaining UK Anti-Hate-Crime legislation.
Moral conviction is constructed from 3 questions based on Skitka et al. (2021):
A: The government and public institutions have a responsibility to reduce unequal treatment and unequal outcomes resulting from discrimination affecting some groups in the UK.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
B: Thinking about your feelings about this issue: To what extent are your feelings about this issue a reflection of your core moral values and convictions?
1 = not at all
2 = slightly
3 = moderately
4 = much
5 = very much
C: To what extent are your feelings about this issue deeply connected to your beliefs about “right” and “wrong”?
1 = not at all
2 = slightly
3 = moderately
4 = much
5 = very much
The dependent variable 'hate crime attitudes' is measured using the Universal Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS-U) (Bender et al., 2025) and an Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998).
Hypothesis: (Backlash Effect)
The effect of exposure to anti-hate-crime laws on Hate Crime Attitudes will depend on policy alignment of moral conviction and may eventually reverse with strong policy adverse moral conviction.
***Update 24/09/2026***
Preliminary data suggested that it may be useful to include an additional measure of self-reported attitudes toward hate crime. The following item was therefore added at the very end of the post-test questionnaire. As it appears only after all other measures in the post-test questionnaire, its inclusion does not affect any of the previously specified measurements in the survey experiment.
Please indicate how reprehensible you would find it if someone behaved as follows.
D: When someone physically or verbally attacks a person because of their migration background or nationality.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
E: When someone physically or verbally assaults a person because of their sexual orientation.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
F: When someone physically or verbally assaults a person because of their skin color, ethnicity or religion.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
|
After
Updated on 24/09/2026. All changes made in this update are marked by *** at the beginning and end of each revised passage.
Exposure to anti-hate crime legislation is a binary: participants in the control group are asked to read a dictionary and scientific definition of hate crime. Participants in the treatment group additionally read a text explaining UK Anti-Hate-Crime legislation.
Moral conviction is constructed from 3 questions based on Skitka et al. (2021):
A: The government and public institutions have a responsibility to reduce unequal treatment and unequal outcomes resulting from discrimination affecting some groups in the UK.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
B: Thinking about your feelings about this issue: To what extent are your feelings about this issue a reflection of your core moral values and convictions?
1 = not at all
2 = slightly
3 = moderately
4 = much
5 = very much
C: To what extent are your feelings about this issue deeply connected to your beliefs about “right” and “wrong”?
1 = not at all
2 = slightly
3 = moderately
4 = much
5 = very much
The dependent variable 'hate crime attitudes' is measured using the Universal Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS-U) (Bender et al., 2025) and an Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998).
Hypothesis: (Backlash Effect)
The effect of exposure to anti-hate-crime laws on Hate Crime Attitudes will depend on policy alignment of moral conviction and may eventually reverse with strong policy adverse moral conviction.
***Update 24/09/2026***
Preliminary data suggested that it may be useful to include an additional measure of self-reported attitudes toward hate crime. The following item was therefore added at the very end of the post-test questionnaire. As it appears only after all other measures in the post-test questionnaire, its inclusion does not affect any of the previously specified measurements in the survey experiment.
Please indicate how reprehensible you would find it if someone behaved as follows.
D: When someone physically or verbally assaults a person because of their migration background or nationality.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
E: When someone physically or verbally assaults a person because of their sexual orientation.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
F: When someone physically or verbally assaults a person because of their skin color, ethnicity or religion.
1 = Not reprehensible at all
2
3
4 = Neither
5
6
7 = Very reprehensible
********************************************
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
*** Update 24/09/2026 ***
Data collection was stopped after 168 observations because quota sampling based on political affiliation did not generate sufficient variation in the moral conviction measure. The recruitment strategy was therefore revised, and the two-phase design outlined below is no longer applicable.
Additional participants will instead be recruited using a custom screening procedure based on the directional component of the moral conviction measure (Question A). A detailed description of the revised recruitment strategy and the resulting changes to the study design is provided in the attached document, “Revised Prolific Recruitment with Screening.”
*** Two-phase strategy abandoned on 24/09/2026 ***
A maximum of 504 participants will be recruited through Prolific using its quota-sampling based on political affiliation (168 left- 168 centre - 168 right).
The sample collection consists of two phases.
Phase 1:
336 participants are recruited using Prolifics quota-sampling based on political affiliation: 168 left-leaning and 168 right-leaning. I expect collecting only left- and right-leaning political affilation to increase variation in the moral conviction moderator. Moral Conviction is here treated as a binary. If Phase 1 provides no support for Hypothesis 2, collecting centre-leaning participants is unlikely to be informative.
I proceed to Phase 2 if the interaction is in the expected direction and the one-sided p-value is below 0.05 for at least one of the two hate-crime-attitude outcomes.
Phase 2:
168 participants are recruited using Prolifics quota-sampling based on political affiliation: 168 centre-leaning.
***********************************************************************
|
After
Updated on 24/09/2026. All changes made in this update are marked by *** at the beginning and end of each revised passage.
*** Update 24/09/2026 ***
Data collection was stopped after 168 observations because quota sampling based on political affiliation did not generate sufficient variation in the moral conviction measure. The recruitment strategy was therefore revised, and the two-phase design outlined below is no longer applicable.
Additional participants will instead be recruited using a custom screening procedure based on the directional component of the moral conviction measure (Question A). A detailed description of the revised recruitment strategy and the resulting changes to the study design is provided in the attached document, “Revised Prolific Recruitment with Screening.”
******************************
*** Two-phase strategy abandoned on 24/09/2026 ***
A maximum of 504 participants will be recruited through Prolific using its quota-sampling based on political affiliation (168 left- 168 centre - 168 right).
The sample collection consists of two phases.
Phase 1:
336 participants are recruited using Prolifics quota-sampling based on political affiliation: 168 left-leaning and 168 right-leaning. I expect collecting only left- and right-leaning political affilation to increase variation in the moral conviction moderator. Moral Conviction is here treated as a binary. If Phase 1 provides no support for Hypothesis 2, collecting centre-leaning participants is unlikely to be informative.
I proceed to Phase 2 if the interaction is in the expected direction and the one-sided p-value is below 0.05 for at least one of the two hate-crime-attitude outcomes.
Phase 2:
168 participants are recruited using Prolifics quota-sampling based on political affiliation: 168 centre-leaning.
***********************************************************************
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
*** Two phase strategy abandoned on 24/09/2026 ***
Phase 1:
With N = 336, 80% power and one-sided α=.05, the minimum detectable difference in treatment effects between low- and high-moral-conviction groups is approximately 0.54 SD.
**********************************************************************
Total sample:
With N = 504, 80% power, and two-sided α = .05, the minimum detectable standardized treatment * moral-conviction interaction is approximately 0.25 SD per one-SD increase in moral conviction.
|
After
Updated on 24/09/2026. All changes made in this update are marked by *** at the beginning and end of each revised passage.
*** Two phase strategy abandoned on 24/09/2026 ***
Phase 1:
With N = 336, 80% power and one-sided α=.05, the minimum detectable difference in treatment effects between low- and high-moral-conviction groups is approximately 0.54 SD.
**********************************************************************
Total sample:
With N = 504, 80% power, and two-sided α = .05, the minimum detectable standardized treatment * moral-conviction interaction is approximately 0.25 SD per one-SD increase in moral conviction.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
***Update 24/09/2026***
Preliminary data suggested that it may be informative to include a measure of institutional trust. The following item was therefore added at the very end of the post-treatment questionnaire. As it appears only after all other outcome measures, its inclusion does not affect any of the previously specified measurements in the experiment.
Please indicate on a scale from 0 to 10 how much you personally trust each of the following institutions.
0 = No trust at all
10 = Complete trust
1. The UK Parliament
2. The legal system
3. The police
4. Politicians
5. Political parties
Response scale for each item:
0 = No trust at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = Complete trust
|
After
Updated on 24/09/2026. All changes made in this update are marked by *** at the beginning and end of each revised passage.
***Update 24/09/2026***
Preliminary data suggested that it may be informative to include a measure of institutional trust. The following item was therefore added at the very end of the post-treatment questionnaire. As it appears only after all other outcome measures, its inclusion does not affect any of the previously specified measurements in the experiment.
Please indicate on a scale from 0 to 10 how much you personally trust each of the following institutions.
0 = No trust at all
10 = Complete trust
1. The UK Parliament
2. The legal system
3. The police
4. Politicians
5. Political parties
Response scale for each item:
0 = No trust at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 = Complete trust
******************************************
|