Foot-in-the-door strategy during a political canvassing in La Plata. Experimental Evidence from Argentina
Last registered on February 24, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Foot-in-the-door strategy during a political canvassing in La Plata. Experimental Evidence from Argentina
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003920
Initial registration date
February 18, 2019
Last updated
February 24, 2019 7:48 PM EST
Location(s)
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Universidad de San Andres
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Universidad de San Andres
PI Affiliation
Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-02-18
End date
2019-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
It is our mainly aim to estimate direct causal effects of door-to-door combined with a foot-in-the-door technique during an extensive canvasing compared with previous studies. Our hypothesis is that a level of interaction between a neighbor and a candidate would promote gratitude or indebtedness related to the aspects of the relationship between the agents. In order to do so, we run an experiment in some localities of La Plata.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Ertola Navajas, Roberto Ignacio, Maria Gabriela Ertola Navajas and Martin A. Rossi. 2019. "Foot-in-the-door strategy during a political canvassing in La Plata. Experimental Evidence from Argentina." AEA RCT Registry. February 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3920-1.0.
Former Citation
Ertola Navajas, Roberto Ignacio et al. 2019. "Foot-in-the-door strategy during a political canvassing in La Plata. Experimental Evidence from Argentina." AEA RCT Registry. February 24. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3920/history/42039.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
The intervention has two different parts: specific political publicity that aims the candidate to be known by everyone in the neighborhood and a door-to-door canvassing which main objective is to establish a bond with the voter and maintain the link until the day of general elections at least.
Intervention Start Date
2019-02-18
Intervention End Date
2019-08-11
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our main outcome is the percentage of treated voters in each polling station
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
(1) the number of complaints and requests made by the candidate and voters;
(2) the number of direct contacts made by voters;
(3) a dummy variable that reflects if voter participate in any City Council Session, and
(4) a dummy variable to capture social involvement at neighborhood level like neighborhoods’ meetings.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
first place we settle on the territory where the intervention can be done. Regardless of the 255 authorized polling stations the 8th electoral section has, we were allowed to run the experiment in only 50.
We consider target households to every house which location is at most two blocks from each eligible polling place.
The units of analysis are the polling stations at the polling places.
Experimental Design Details
first place we settle on the territory where the intervention can be done. Before the randomization took place, the campaign team determined the polling places where they can visit without interfere in the general political canvassing. Regardless of the 255 authorized polling stations the 8th electoral section has, we were allowed to run the experiment in only 50 (approximate 20%). We consider target households to every house which location is at most two blocks from each eligible polling place. The units of analysis are the polling stations at the polling places.
Randomization Method
Random numbers with Stata
Randomization Unit
We first divided the eligible territory in 4 strata: the Metropolitan area, the North (Tolosa, Ringuelet, Gonnet and City Bell), the West (Los Hornos and Lisandro Olmos) and the South (Villa Elvira, San Lorenzo and Arana).
Randomization was done within each strata. We randomly select polling places equally to the treatment and control groups, using random numbers in Stata.

As we have already defined the target number of households in each territory, the population is every voter who lives in the eligible territory and vote in that polling place.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
36 groups of polling stations and 268 polling stations
Sample size: planned number of observations
5,000 voters
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
18 groups of polling places publicity treatment
18 groups of polling places door-to-door and publicity treatment

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
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information
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 and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers