Situating the role of formal rules and regulations in defining a “default” decision from which frontline workers operate

Last registered on March 31, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Situating the role of formal rules and regulations in defining a “default” decision from which frontline workers operate
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004051
Initial registration date
March 25, 2019

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 31, 2019, 11:21 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Copenhagen

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2019-05-01
End date
2019-05-14
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Many frontline workers make adjudicative decisions about individual citizens’ access to public benefits and services. The proposed study examines a subtle way whereby formal decision rules and regulations inform and shape decision-making. Drawing on the notion of choice architecture in behavioral economics, the study theorizes that formal decision rules and regulations define a particular default decision outcome, and that the frontline workers use that “default” as a heuristic when processing the available information on which to base their decision-making. Using data from a survey experiment design among 2,000 Danish citizens, we show how manipulation of the default decision outcome relates to decision-making about a citizen’s access to a public service.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Pedersen, Mogens Jin. 2019. "Situating the role of formal rules and regulations in defining a “default” decision from which frontline workers operate." AEA RCT Registry. March 31. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4051-1.0
Former Citation
Pedersen, Mogens Jin. 2019. "Situating the role of formal rules and regulations in defining a “default” decision from which frontline workers operate." AEA RCT Registry. March 31. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4051/history/44431
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention consists of manipulation of text in a survey.
Intervention Start Date
2019-05-01
Intervention End Date
2019-05-14

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Reported recommendation of decision-making
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study involves a two-arm experimental study among citizens age 18-65 in Denmark. The experimental study was embedded in a survey. The survey respondents are presented to a scenario concerning an unemployed citizens receiving unemployment benefits. After having read a vignette describing the unemployed citizen, respondents are asked to report whether the unemployed citizen should receive a sanction for policy non-compliance.

Before being exposed to the vignette, the respondents were presented with text elaborating the basis for decision-making. We manipulate parts of the text describing the formal decision rules.
Experimental Design Details
The study involves a two-arm experimental study among citizens age 18-65 in Denmark. The experimental study was embedded in a survey. The survey respondents are presented to a scenario concerning an unemployed citizens receiving unemployment benefits. After having read a vignette describing the unemployed citizen, respondents are asked to report whether the unemployed citizen should receive a sanction for policy non-compliance.

Before being exposed to the vignette, the respondents were presented with text elaborating the basis for decision-making. We manipulate parts of the text describing the formal decision rules. At random, respondents were exposed to one of the following texts:

A: “Benefit recipients are to receive a sanction if they fail to attend a job training arrangement without reasonable cause”

B: Benefit recipients are not to receive a sanction if fail to attend a job training arrangement with reasonable cause”
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by simple randomization by computer
Randomization Unit
The individual survey respondent.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2,000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2,000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
2,000 individuals (1,000 in each treatment arm)
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

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
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