Democracy, Trauma, and Wartime Experiment

Last registered on August 27, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Democracy, Trauma, and Wartime Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018809
Initial registration date
August 21, 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
August 27, 2026, 11:56 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

Affiliation
University of Manchester

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)
PI Affiliation
George Washinton University
PI Affiliation
Kyiv School of Economics

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-08-01
End date
2026-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study includes an experimental design to study regime preferences and support for democracy in a nationally representative survey of Ukraine’s population in wartime.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Hale, Henry et al. 2026. "Democracy, Trauma, and Wartime Experiment ." AEA RCT Registry. August 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18809-1.0
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)
Survey with a democracy module randomly placed before or after a battery of questions on PTSD/CPTSD, war-experience, and trauma–politics. Also a two-staged randomization: first split: 1A no preamble vs 1B peace preamble for regime preference; second split in re-randomized sample: Group A no wartime-democracy preamble vs Group B wartime-democracy preamble.
Intervention Start Date
2026-08-01
Intervention End Date
2026-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The outcomes in the democracy module include:
- DEM1: Regime preference (3-point forced choice, with and without peacetime preamble)
- DEM2: Open-ended definition of “democracy” (verbatim, qualitative codes)
- DEM3: Conflict framing (3-option forced choice)
- DEM4: Agreement with mechanism statements (3 Likert items)
- DEM5: Presence of emotions (binary for each emotion)
- DEM5B: Emotion intensity (1–5) for reported emotions
- DEM6: Open-ended definition of “authoritarian government” (verbatim, qualitative codes)
- DEM8: Importance of always following democratic procedures in wartime (0–10) — primary outcome (with and without preamble)
- DEM9: Checklist of specific democratic procedures respondents had in mind (elections, protest, media freedom, civilian control of military, equal rights, freedom of movement)
- Treatment assignment indicators: Peace-preamble (DEM1b), wartime-democracy preamble (DEM7 split)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Outcomes of interest in the second experiment include a 0–10 importance rating of following democratic procedures in wartime (primary), forced-choice conflict framing, agreement with mechanism statements about democracy and wartime outcomes, open-ended definitions of democracy and authoritarianism (for qualitative coding), emotion checks with intensity ratings, and a checklist of which democratic procedures respondents had in mind—enabling ITT and adjusted comparisons of the primary outcome, pre–post within-respondent change analyses, mediation by framing/emotion/mechanism endorsements, and qualitative analysis of conceptual shifts.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcomes include heterogeneous effects involving identity, trust, and civic duty.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study is embedded into a third wave of a panel study with replenishment: sample replenishment will be done randomly to restore population representativeness.

This study utilizes phone interviews with a randomly selected group of people from Ukraine's population. The survey agency KIIS generates random cell phone numbers using a computer. KIIS then contacts the chosen phone numbers, and if an adult answers, invites them to participate in the interview. If the number is invalid or the person who answers is unable to participate, the interviewer moves on to the next number.

Participants will be randomly allocated in two parallel groups, then two parallel groups, and then again into two parallel groups, with randomizations being independent of each other. In each case, one of those groups constitutes the control group; while the other group will be the respective treated groups (asked at end of the survey, given a preamble, given a statement).
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
KIIS follows a standard randomization software to achieve randomization of treatment.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
0
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,200 respondents, all adult residents of Ukraine
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approximately 600 on each arm, with three independent randomizations conducted
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
ZOiS Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2026-05-29
IRB Approval Number
1/2024-1
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information