Victim Language Project

Last registered on July 23, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Victim Language Project
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019054
Initial registration date
July 12, 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 13, 2026, 8:35 AM EDT

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

Last updated
July 23, 2026, 10:20 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
J.J. Prescott
Affiliation
Univ. of Michigan
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-07-23
End date
2026-09-30
Keywords
Behavior, Crime, Violence, & Conflict
Additional Keywords
Law, Decision-making
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This pilot survey experiment seeks to replicate and extend Conklin (2020) by examining whether calling a complainant a “victim,” rather than a “complaining witness,” affects how people evaluate an alleged assault case. Participants will read a brief vignette in which a defendant denies that an assault occurred and claims that the complainant fabricated the accusation. The experiment randomly varies the term used to refer to the complainant (“victim” versus “complaining witness”) and the complainant’s gender in the vignette. After reading the vignette, participants will answer questions about whether they believe the defendant punched the complainant, whether they agree that the complainant is a victim, and other questions about the two parties and their claims. The study is intended to help assess whether victim terminology affects mock jurors’ judgments and to inform ongoing legal debates about whether and when courts should allow prosecutors to use the term “victim” when the alleged victim’s status is disputed.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Prescott, J.J.. 2026. "Victim Language Project." AEA RCT Registry. July 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19054-1.2
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Participants will be randomly assigned to read a vignette that refers to the complainant either as the “victim” or as the “complaining witness.” Participants will also be randomly assigned the gender of the complainant in the vignette, so that the complainant is either male or female. After reading the vignette, participants will answer a series of questions about their beliefs regarding the defendant, the complainant, and the alleged incident.

Participants will read one of four versions of the vignette below. Bracketed language indicates the text that varies by treatment condition:

Imagine you are serving on a jury for a case involving a man who allegedly punched [another man/a woman]. At trial, the defendant claimed this never happened and that the [victim/complaining witness], [John/Jane Doe], completely fabricated the entire story to get back at him for a heated argument they had earlier that night. The [victim/complaining witness] says the defendant punched [him/her] after the heated argument. Phone records show that [the victim/complaining witness] texted [his/her] friend that night that the defendant had just punched [him/her] and asked what to do. The friend told [him/her] to call the police. Immediately after receiving this advice, the [victim/complaining witness] called the police, who took [his/her] statement. There were no eyewitnesses or video evidence of the alleged assault. The police report noted no visible injury on the [victim/complaining witness].

After reading the vignette, participants will answer the primary and secondary outcome questions described below using 0–100 slider scales.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2026-07-23
Intervention End Date
2026-08-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The two primary outcomes are (1) the extent to which participants believe that the defendant punched the victim/complaining witness and (2) the extent to which participants agree that the alleged victim is indeed a victim. Both outcomes are measured on a 0–100 slider scale.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcomes include participants’ ratings of:
• How violent or aggressive they believe the defendant is.
• Whether they believe the defendant will commit crimes in the future.
• What share of fault they believe the victim/complaining witness bears for the incident.
• What share of fault they believe the defendant bears for the incident.
• How severely they believe the defendant should be punished.
• How believable they find the victim/complaining witness’s account.
• How believable they find the defendant’s account.
• How much sympathy they feel for the victim/complaining witness.
Each secondary outcome is also measured using the same 0–100 slider scale. Higher values indicate more of the construct described in the corresponding survey question. These outcomes are intended to shed light on potential mechanisms through which victim terminology may influence mock jurors’ judgments.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment uses a 2x2 factorial design. The experiment randomly varies: (1) the term used to refer to the complainant, either “victim” or “complaining witness”; and (2) the gender of the complainant, either male or female.

Participants will not be informed of the study hypotheses or the treatment assignment during data collection. There is no direct interaction between researchers and participants during data collection. Researchers analyzing the data will not be blinded to treatment assignment because treatment assignment is recorded in the survey data and is necessary for the planned analysis. No human coding of open-ended participant responses is planned. These procedures are intended to reduce unintended influence from participants, researchers, coders, or analysts having knowledge of the study design, treatments, measures, or outcomes during the research process.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization will be conducted by Qualtrics using computerized random assignment. Participants will be randomly assigned to treatment conditions with equal probability.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is the individual survey participant. There is no clustered randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Not applicable. There are no clusters because randomization occurs at the individual-participant level.
Sample size: planned number of observations
400 survey participants.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 participants per treatment arm, for a total planned sample of 400 allocated equally across the four cells of the 2x2 factorial design:
• 100 participants: male “victim”
• 100 participants: female “victim”
• 100 participants: male “complaining witness”
• 100 participants: female “complaining witness”
Equivalently, 200 participants will be assigned to the “victim” label condition and 200 participants will be assigned to the “complaining witness” label condition; 200 participants will see a male complainant and 200 participants will see a female complainant.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
For the main treatment contrast on the primary outcomes, a sensitivity power analysis indicates that the study can detect a minimum effect size of approximately Cohen’s d = 0.281 with 80% power at α = 0.05. At 90% power, the minimum detectable effect is approximately Cohen’s d = 0.325.
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Victim Language Project Registration
Document Type
other
Document Description
Standalone copy of the study registration, duplicating some information entered in the registry fields while providing the complete author information and reference.
File
Victim Language Project Registration

MD5: 082825bcd2f1ae78566cb66707543ecd

SHA1: 6c942f7b2d4ad5d00a3874f067d405bd38c209cd

Uploaded At: July 23, 2026

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Michigan Institutional Review Board – Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences (IRB-HSBS)
IRB Approval Date
2026-07-23
IRB Approval Number
HUM00295662
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Victim Language Project Pre-analysis Plan

MD5: 3219413a1472c83c1e9ccb3e3b2c20b7

SHA1: da53823070dfecf697f6826de2a59e1e0bc5c2a9

Uploaded At: July 23, 2026

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials