Prickly Neighbors: Religion, Risk and Human-Wildlife Coexistence

Last registered on July 06, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Prickly Neighbors: Religion, Risk and Human-Wildlife Coexistence
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018963
Initial registration date
July 04, 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
July 06, 2026, 9:35 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
Koustuv Saha
Affiliation
American University of Sharjah
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Adrian Lopes
PI Affiliation
American University of Sharjah
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Dina Tasneem
PI Affiliation
American University of Sharjah
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Sahan Dissanayake
PI Affiliation
Portland State University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-07-06
End date
2026-07-27
Keywords
Agriculture, Behavior, Crime, Violence, & Conflict, Environment & Energy
Additional Keywords
Indigenous communities, forest rights
JEL code(s)
D81, Q57, J15, Q15, Z12, Q56
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
Although indigenous communities inhabit nearly eighty percent of the world’s richest biodiversity hotspots, their role in promoting biodiversity conservation has received little systematic study. Many indigenous communities that coexist with predator species embrace “live-and-let-live” philosophies, avoiding confrontation even in the face of livestock or crop losses. Their belief systems often frame local flora and fauna as divine incarnations that command reverence and protection.

One such population are the Rabari herders of Rajasthan in India, whose belief in the divine nature of leopards has contributed to their homelands supporting one of the highest leopard densities in the world. Using a lab-in-field experiment, herders' ambiguity aversion for both predation events and an artificial event are separately elicited. Comparing ambiguity aversion and insensitivity across the two sources and across Rabari and Non-Rabari herders, the study aims to show that pro-wildlife religious beliefs foster greater tolerance toward uncertain predation events. The findings will also contribute to the broader literature on how religious beliefs can shape economic preferences including uncertainty preferences.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Dissanayake, Sahan et al. 2026. "Prickly Neighbors: Religion, Risk and Human-Wildlife Coexistence ." AEA RCT Registry. July 06. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18963-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2026-07-06
Intervention End Date
2026-07-27

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Ambiguity Aversion Index (b-index), Ambiguity Insensitivity Index (a-index) elicited across three within-subject treatments. These indices are borrowed from established literature on ambiguity preferences including Baillon et al. (2018).

References
Baillon, A., Huang, Z., Selim, A., & Wakker, P. P. (2018). Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events. Econometrica, 86(5), 1839–1858. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA14370
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We use a lab-in-field experiment conducted among a sample of Rabari and Non-Rabari herders in villages including Bera situated in proximity of the Jawai Leopard Conservation Reserve. The proposed experiment would rely upon established methods proposed in Baillon et al. (2018) and Lotito et al. (2024). We use multiple price list ambiguity elicitation exercises to identify uncertainty preferences in terms of a constructed “natural” event, predation, and a hypothetical general event. The elicited ambiguity preference measure will be compared across the social groups and sources of uncertainty to identify the effect of religion on ambiguity preferences toward predation events. To validate the findings of the experiment, individual ambiguity preference measures will be used to predict the likelihood of herders to retaliate against wildlife and take precautionary measures.

References


References:
Baillon, A., Huang, Z., Selim, A., & Wakker, P. P. (2018). Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events. Econometrica, 86(5), 1839–1858. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA14370
Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A., & Santoni, M. (2024). Testing source influence on ambiguity reaction: Preference and insensitivity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 69(3), 349–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-024-09444-4
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization into sub-sample with Predation-Gains first then Ellsberg-Gains/Ellsberg-Gains first then Predation-Gains:
Carried out in computer prior to field deployment

Randomization into sub-samples based on order of events within each game:
Carried out using survey software during game play

Randomization to select which decision to incentivize:
Carried out using survey software during game play

Random draw to determine the outcome of selected ambiguous/risky event:
Carried out using survey software during game play
Randomization Unit
Individual-level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
430 individuals/herders.
Sample size: planned number of observations
430 individuals/herders
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Minimum sample size: 210 Rabari and 210 Non-Rabari herders.
Target sample size: 215 Rabari and 215 Non-Rabari herders.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Ambiguity Aversion Index (b-index) Power analysis for the b-index was conducted via Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 repetitions, α = 0.05, two-sided) in Stata. The primary test (H01) is a difference-in-differences comparing the within-subject change from Ellsberg-Gains to Predation-Gains across Rabari and Non-Rabari. The target effect size is 0.14 (28.6% of SD) b-index points, anchored to the difference between Natural and Artificial Gains conditions in Watanabe et al. (2024). Using a standard deviation of 0.490 (the maximum SD across gain-domain treatments in Watanabe et al., 2024) and a within-subject correlation of 0.50 (based on the intra cluster correlation (ICC) reported in Anantanasuwong et al., 2024), a sample of 210 subjects per group achieves a simulated power of 81.2%. Ambiguity Insensitivity Index (a-index) For the a-index, the primary test (H02) follows the same difference-in-differences structure. The target effect size is 0.20 (41.7% of SD) a-index points, again anchored to Watanabe et al. (2024). Using a standard deviation of 0.480 and a within-subject correlation of 0.30 (Anantanasuwong et al., 2024), a sample of 210 subjects per group achieves a simulated power of 96.2%. In both cases the standard deviations are chosen conservatively as the maximum observed within their respective domains in Watanabe et al. (2024), so the reported power figures are lower bounds on true power. References: Watanabe, M., & Fujimi, T. (2024). Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 68(1), 51-75. Anantanasuwong, K., Kouwenberg, R., Mitchell, O. S., & Peijnenburg, K. (2024). Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: Field evidence from a large sample of investors. Experimental Economics, 27(3), 548-581.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
American University of Sharjah Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2026-06-20
IRB Approval Number
26-134
Analysis Plan