Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Moral NIMBY-ism
Last registered on October 02, 2017


Trial Information
General Information
Moral NIMBY-ism
Initial registration date
October 02, 2017
Last updated
October 02, 2017 10:00 PM EDT
Primary Investigator
University of Toronto
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Johns Hopkins University
Additional Trial Information
In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
We will run a survey experiment to test for the presence of “Nimby-ism” in the attitudes toward morally controversial transactions, that is, the tendency to see certain trades as less morally acceptable if they occur in one’s country. We will study the case of compensation for plasma donors.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Lacetera, Nicola and Mario Macis. 2017. "Moral NIMBY-ism." AEA RCT Registry. October 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2413-1.0.
Former Citation
Lacetera, Nicola, Nicola Lacetera and Mario Macis. 2017. "Moral NIMBY-ism." AEA RCT Registry. October 02. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2413/history/21972.
Experimental Details
We will administer a survey to a sample provided by the company ResearchNow, of about 800 respondents residing in Canada.

A random subsample of respondents will read information about the demand and supply for plasma in Canada and the US, with also some reference to the fact that compensating donors is not allowed in many Canadian provinces, but a large share of plasma used in Canada is imported from the U.S., where donors are paid. Of the about 400 subjects who will read this text, a random half will then be asked to express their opinion about whether payments should be allowed in the U.S. and the other half will express an opinion as of whether payments to plasma donors should be allowed in Canada. According to whether the subjects responded positively or negatively regarding their support for payments, we will subsequently ask how much the respondents agree with some motivations for their answers. The sentences that express these motivations stress aspects such as the morality of allowing or not allowing payments, the risk of attracting donors with transmittable diseases if payments were allowed, and the importance (or not) to guarantee a sufficient domestic supply.

The remaining 400 respondents will read a similar text where, instead of comparing Canada and the U.S, the comparison will be between the U.S. and Australia, another country where compensation is not allowed and that is a net importer of plasma. A random subsample of about 200 respondents will again express an opinion about payments in the U.S, whereas the remaining 200 respondents will express opinions about allowing payments in Australia. As for the previous 400 subjects, the question about expressing support for payments will be followed by a request to rate the importance of different reasons for the response.

We will then compare the shares of individuals expressing favour for payments in the three countries. Because all respondents are from the same country, we are particularly interested in assessing the presence of absence of differences in approval rates, especially between the two countries were payments are not allowed. The additional questions about the motives behind the support or opposition will further help identifying moral NIMBYism as a cause of any difference.

In a separate survey with 400 American respondents, conducted via MTurk, we will provide information about the allocation and procurement of kidneys for transplants -- in the U.S. for a random half of the sample, and in Canada for the remaining half. Following a structure that is similar to the survey described above, we will ask subjects to express their support or opposition to paying kidney donors in the U.S, and to paying kidney donors in Canada. Again, the fact that the respondents are all from the same country, and the additional questions about the "qualifiers" of the opposition or support to payments, will help identifying differences in positions that we may reconduct to some form of different moral views according to the proximity of the issue. Note that in the case of kidney procurements, payments are illegal in both the U.S. and Canada.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Share of respondents who express favor for allowing payments for plasma donors. We will also perform analyses of heterogeneous effects.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Please see the description fo the intervention above
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Done by a computer
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
800 respondents in the first survey, and 400 in the second survey
Sample size: planned number of observations
800 respondents in the first survey, and 400 in the second survey
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
800 respondents in the first survey, and 400 in the second survey
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
A sample size of 200 subjects per condition will allow to detect economically relevant differences of 10 to 15 percentage points in approval rates, with p<=0.5 and power of .8.
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB Name
University of Toronto
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)