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.
Replication of beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments
Last registered on November 07, 2018


Trial Information
General Information
Replication of beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments
Initial registration date
November 04, 2018
Last updated
November 07, 2018 4:47 PM EST
Primary Investigator
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
Additional Trial Information
In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
The study is a replication of an existing paper: "Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments". The purpose of the study is to examine the role of beauty and gender stereotypes in contributing to public goods using a lab experiment where subjects make repeated decisions on investments. Thus, we ask, do people contribute more based on how attractive they are? Do men and women contribute differently? Do people expect attractive people to contribute more, and hence get disappointed and attach a beauty penalty to them? Our research replicates the original study that examined these and similar questions. The study will take place at Texas A&M University with undergrad students in a lab. We will ask subjects to make a series of decisions on a computer.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Eckel, Catherine et al. 2018. "Replication of beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments." AEA RCT Registry. November 07. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3483-2.0.
Former Citation
Eckel, Catherine et al. 2018. "Replication of beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments." AEA RCT Registry. November 07. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3483/history/36925.
Experimental Details
We will be replicating a published paper: Andreoni, James, and Ragan Petrie (2008), “Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 29 (1): 73-93.

The central idea of the paper is to examine the role of beauty, gender and stereotypes in public goods contribution. Thus, we will examine if people follow beauty stereotypes when making decisions. We will have two treatments: Information and no information. In the information condition, subjects’ photos along with their individual contributions are shown while in the no-information condition, only the photos are shown without the contribution.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Contribution to public goods
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The design is similar to the original paper, as explained below (using authors' original text):

Our experiments use a public goods contribution setting. Subjects make their decisions on a computer. In the pilot, we plan to have 4 sessions. Each session has 15 subjects, and they are randomly divided into 3 groups of 5 subjects. In each round a subject is endowed with 20 tokens that could be invested in a private good or a public good. The private good pays $0.02 per token invested by the individual, and the public good pays $0.01 per token invested by the entire group. Each subject earns pay-off based on his investment in the private good and the total group investment in the public good. Subjects play with the same group of 5 people for 8 rounds, then are randomly re-matched to new groups for another 8 rounds, until they play with five different groups, each for 8 rounds. So, subjects play 40 rounds in total in each session.

A digital passport-style photograph is taken of each subject at the beginning of the experimental session. The photo is from the shoulders up and is displayed on top of the screen while subjects make decisions. At the end of each round, the total amount contributed to the public good by all group members is reported. There are two treatments: No Information and Information. In the Information treatment, both the photo and the contribution of that group member from the previous round are displayed. The contribution is listed below each photo, and the photos are rearranged each round with the highest contributor on the left and the lowest on the right. In the No Information treatment, only the photos of each group member are displayed on the screen and no information on individual actions is given.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
On a computer using ztree
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
8000 individual-rounds
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100-100 in each group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
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
Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
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)