x

NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
A representative investigation of discrimination against Muslims in Germany
Last registered on October 23, 2017

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
A representative investigation of discrimination against Muslims in Germany
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002382
Initial registration date
October 22, 2017
Last updated
October 23, 2017 2:28 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2017-08-21
End date
2017-10-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
From 2015 to 2016, close to one million refugees arrived in Germany, largely from countries with a pre-dominantly Muslim background. Muslims are the social group in Europe in general and Germany in particular that currently faces the strongest negative attitudes. We study the prevalence and dynamics of taste-based and statistical discrimination in a representative sample of the German population by using a two-wave online survey. Respondents choose between two other participants who to participate with in two-person coordination games. In addition, we elicit respondents’ behavior and beliefs with respect to the coordination games and measure relative prosocial preference with respect to the other participants in separate allocation games. Respondents know about the other participants whether they currently live in refugee shelter homes in Germany or not and see pictures of their faces. We exploit two sources of exogenous variation: (i) Pictures reveal whether headscarves are worn or not. (ii) Respondents do or do not receive information between waves—right after Wave 1 and/or right before Wave 2—on group level behavior of refugee and non-refugee participants in previous coordination games.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Schwerter, Frederik, Matthias Sutter and Christian Unkelbach. 2017. "A representative investigation of discrimination against Muslims in Germany." AEA RCT Registry. October 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2382-1.0.
Former Citation
Schwerter, Frederik et al. 2017. "A representative investigation of discrimination against Muslims in Germany." AEA RCT Registry. October 23. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2382/history/22574.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2017-09-15
Intervention End Date
2017-10-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
1.: Refugee or non-refugee subject is chosen to play the coordination game with
2.: How main subjects choose to behave in the coordination games
3.: Beliefs of how refugee and non-refugee subjects played in previous coordination games
4.: Budget allocations between refugee and non-refugee subjects
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1. Political Preferences
2. Moral Preferences
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
1.1.: What party would/did subjects vote for in previous/current federal elections
1.2.: Using likert scales, how much do subjects like immigration
1.3.: Do subjects approve of Angela Merkel's immigration policy
1.4.: Do subjects agree with Germany' former president that Islam belongs to Germany
2.: Using the "moral foundations theory" questionnaire
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
There are three groups of subjects:
1) Main participants (MP)
2) Residents of a German refugee shelter home (R)
3) Non-refugee residents of the region in Germany where the shelter home of 2) is located (C)

Wave 1 and Wave 2
MPs are asked whether they would prefer to participate in two-person coordination games with one of two other participants that are presented to them. One of them is a subject from group R and the other is from group C. MPs know this and, additionally, see a picture of each of them.

MPs know that their choice will be implemented with a chance of 90%, but that with 10% their choice will be overruled and their other participant will be determined by a coin flip. Before knowing who their other participant is, MPs state their behavior in the game for each potential other participant.

In addition, MPs were told that all subjects from groups R and C played the same coordination games with each other in a previous experiment. We measure MPs’ beliefs of how subjects from group R played the game when paired together, how two subjects from group C played the game when paired together, and how one subject from group C and one subject from group R played the game when paired together. MPs also allocated budgets between the three pairs of subjects—one pair of subjects from group R, one pair of subjects from group C and one mixed pair—in three separate allocation games.

Coordination Game Wave 1
Subjects choose one among 5 options. If they choose the same option, they have a chance of winning a price. Otherwise they have no such chance. The choice options are labelled: “15min too early,” “5min too early,” “On time,” “5min too early,” and “15min too late.”

Coordination Game Wave 2
Subjects choose one among 5 options. If they choose the same option, they have a chance of winning a price. Otherwise they have no such chance. The choice options are labelled:
“Lemonade,” “Bier,” “Tea,” “Hot Lemon,” and “Pineapple Juice.”

Treatment Dimension 1
The pictures of group R subjects show that they wear headscarves or not.

Treatment Dimension 2
Right after Wave 1 and/or right before Wave 2 subjects receive information on how all subjects from groups R and C behaved in Coordination Game Wave 1 when playing it previously among each other.

Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
3000 participants in Wave 1 and as many as possible (up to 3000) in Wave 2
Sample size: planned number of observations
3000 participants in Wave 1 and as many as possible (up to 3000) in Wave 2
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Roughly 1500 participants will see pictures of Refugees wearing headscarfs and the remaining participants will see pictures of Refugees that do not show headscarfs.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is 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