Beliefs and Attitudes in Debating Competitions
Last registered on March 22, 2019
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Beliefs and Attitudes in Debating Competitions
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003922
Initial registration date
March 06, 2019
Last updated
March 22, 2019 12:22 PM EDT
Location(s)
Country
Germany
Region
Country
Netherlands
Region
Primary Investigator
Name
Egon Tripodi
Affiliation
European University Institute
Contact Primary Investigator
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Name
Joël van der Weele
PI Affiliation
University of Amsterdam
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Peter Schwardmann
PI Affiliation
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Contact Investigator
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-03-08
End date
2019-06-01
Keywords
Crime, Violence, & Conflict, Electoral, Governance
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We administer a series of surveys at two international debating competitions and combine these with official tournament data from expert judges to better understand various aspects of human communication.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Schwardmann, Peter, Egon Tripodi and Joël van der Weele. 2019. "Beliefs and Attitudes in Debating Competitions." AEA RCT Registry. March 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3922-1.0.
Former Citation
Schwardmann, Peter et al. 2019. "Beliefs and Attitudes in Debating Competitions." AEA RCT Registry. March 22. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3922/history/43811.
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
See pre-analysis plan.
Intervention Start Date
2019-03-08
Intervention End Date
2019-03-24
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Pre-debate beliefs
2. Pre-debate attitudes
3. Post-debate beliefs
4. Post-debate attitudes
5. Baseline beliefs
6. Speaker persuasiveness scores
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
See pre-analysis plan.
Experimental Design Details
We exploit the natural experimental variation in university debating competitions, in which motions are secret up until 30 minutes before the debate and teams of debaters are randomly assigned a persuasion goal--to debate either in favor or against the motion. The side of the motion a debater has to defend represents our experimental treatment manipulation. We do not have a control group of debaters who do not have a persuasion goal.
Randomization Method
Randomization done by tournament organizers on a computer.
Randomization Unit
Two-player team of debaters.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
104 teams of debaters.
Sample size: planned number of observations
208 debaters.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
52 teams of debaters on each of the two sides of a debate.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
Ethics Committee Economics and Business
IRB Approval Date
2018-10-17
IRB Approval Number
20181017051000
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