Educational inequality, beliefs about luck vs effort, and the demand for redistribution – Representative evidence from survey experiments

Last registered on April 30, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Educational inequality, beliefs about luck vs effort, and the demand for redistribution – Representative evidence from survey experiments
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004156
Initial registration date
April 30, 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
April 30, 2019, 9:41 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
ifo Institut

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute
PI Affiliation
ifo Institute and LMU

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2019-05-06
End date
2019-06-13
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We study the effect of providing information about educational inequality on people’s perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic and educational success and on support for equity-enhancing (policy) actions. For that purpose, we implement a survey experiment among a representative sample of German adults (18 years and older) where we provide treatment group members with factual information about the association between parents’ socioeconomic status and their children’s educational attainment. By comparing responses between the uninformed control group and the informed treatment groups, we evaluate whether information affects (i) peoples’ perceptions of the relative role of luck vs. effort, (ii) peoples’ preferences towards equity-enhancing education policies and (iii) peoples’ willingness to donate real money to charities supporting educational equality.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Grewenig, Elisabeth et al. 2019. "Educational inequality, beliefs about luck vs effort, and the demand for redistribution – Representative evidence from survey experiments." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4156-1.0
Former Citation
Grewenig, Elisabeth et al. 2019. "Educational inequality, beliefs about luck vs effort, and the demand for redistribution – Representative evidence from survey experiments." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4156/history/45739
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
For the purpose of our paper, we define educational inequality in Germany as the association between parents’ socioeconomic status and the share of children attending Gymnasium (the highest/academic track in the German schooling system). Specifically, we randomly assign all respondents to a control group or to one of two treatment groups. The first treatment group receives information about the unconditional gap in Gymnasium attendance of 15-years olds by their parents’ socioeconomic status. The second treatment group additionally receives information about the SES gap in Gymnasium attendance of 15-years olds, conditional on the students’ achievement in the PISA test. The control group does not receive any information.
Specifically, respondents in the treatment group will be (i) asked about their perceptions of the SES gap in Gymnasium attendance , (ii) informed about the actual SES gap in Gymnasium attendance (according to their treatment assignment (group 1 and group 2), (iii) asked about their perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines a high educational qualification and high income, respectively, (iv) asked about their preferences towards equity-enhancing educational policies and finally (v) given the opportunity to donate money to charities, supporting educational equality. Respondents in the control group answer the same questions, but without receiving information about the SES gap in Gymnasium attendance (i.e., without stage (ii)).
Intervention (Hidden)
Participants will answer our survey questions via an online platform.
Participants will conduct the experiment via an online platform.
Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (control group, treatment group 1 and treatment group 2).

For the treatment groups, the experiment is structured as follows:
Stage 1 [Belief elicitation]: “Think of a comparison between children from the better and worse-off half of all families (in terms of social background and family income). What is your best guess for the share of students attending Gymnasium from the better-off half of families and the worse-off half of families, respectively?”
Then, participants can indicate their beliefs separately for students from better-off families and worse-off families in two open fields.
Stage 2 [Information provision]:
Treatment group 1: “49 percent of students from the better-off half of all families (in terms of social background and family income) attend the Gymnasium. Among students from the worse-off half of all families, it is 19 percent. This results in a difference of 30 percentage points.“
Treatment group 2: “49 percent of students from the better-off half of all families (in terms of social background and family income) attend the Gymnasium. Among students from the worse-off half of all families, it is 19 percent. This results in a difference of 30 percentage points. Comparing only students who equally perform in mathematics and reading, the difference amounts to 16 percentage points.”

In addition, the information will be presented graphically for both treatment groups.
Stage 3 [Outcome questions]: After information provision, members of the treatment group will be asked about their perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic success, their preferences towards equity-enhancing educational policies and their donations to charities, supporting educational equality (see outcome questions below).

For the control group, Stage 1 [Belief elicitation] and Stage 3 [Outcome question] will be identical, but they will not receive any information (Stage 2).
Intervention Start Date
2019-05-06
Intervention End Date
2019-06-13

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcomes are(i) respondents’ perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines a high educational qualification and high income, respectively, (ii) the respondents’ preferences towards equity-enhancing educational policies and (iii) the respondents actual donations to charities, supporting educational equality.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The outcome question on the perception of luck vs effort is worded as follows:
“Some say that success in life primarily depends on personal effort. Others say that success in life primarily depends on external circumstances beyond someone's control. What do you think determines whether one achieves the following in life? (1)… a high educational attainment; (2)… high income“
Answers to this question can be given on an 4-point scale labelled “mostly personal effort”, “rather personal effort”, “rather external circumstances”, “mostly external circumstances”.

The outcome question on preferences towards equity-enhancing educational policies is worded as follows:
“Do you favor or oppose to spend more governmental resources on children from worse-off families to increase equality of opportunities? Please keep in mind that additional spending is often financed by taxes.”
Answers to this question can be given on a 5-point scale labelled “strongly favor” “somewhat favor” “neither favour nor oppose” “somewhat oppose” “strongly oppose”.

The outcome question on charity donations is worded as follows:
“For this question you will receive a bonus of 80 Lifepoints in addition to the Lifepoints you receive for participating in this survey*.
You receive the opportunity to donate these Lifepoints to two charities. Both charities support, among other things, better opportunities for children from disadvantaged families in Germany. The monetary value of the Lifepoints donated by you is transferred to the charitable foundations. The Lifepoints that have not been donated will be credited to your account after the survey has been completed”

To answer this question, respondents can first indicate how many of the 80 Lifepoints they would like to donate in an open field.

Subsequently, respondents can choose whether they would like to donate to (i) Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk e.V., to (ii) Die Chancenstiftung or to (iii) equally share their lifepoints between both charities.

Respondents can also click on an information button to learn more about the charities.
[Text appearing if clicked:] “The Deutsche Kinderhilfswerk is committed to a child-friendly Germany. Your donation is used for the "Chancengerechter Bildungsstart" project, which, for example, provides children from low-income families with school materials. The Chancenstiftung foundation awards scholarships to children and adolescents from low-income families. The scholarship holders receive professional tutoring.”

*”Lifepoints” are the Experimental Currency Units

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
After eliciting the main outcome variables mentioned above, we further elicit respondents’ subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the transition from primary school to Gymnasium.

We further plan to perform heterogeneity analyses with respect to (i)respondents’ prior beliefs about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance, (ii) respondents’ own educational attainment and, (iii) respondents’ trust in government.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
The question on the subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the school transition is worded as follows:
“In your opinion, how important are the following aspects for students to switch to a Gymnasium after primary school?
- Effort and diligence of students
- Talent of students
- Preferences of students and parents
- Financial means of parents
- Educational level of parents”

Answers to all items can be given on a 5-point scale labelled “very important” “rather important” “neither nor” “rather unimportant” “very unimportant”.

In case we do not find treatment effects on the importance of the above-mentioned e aspects, we plan to explore effect heterogeneities on the primary outcomes variables with respect to the answers provided in this question.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct the experiment in a sample of 4,000 adults aged 18 years and older. The survey is conducted in cooperation with a renowned German survey institute, KANTAR Public. The recruitment and polling is managed by KANTAR Public, who collect the data via an online platform. That is, our participants answer the survey questions autonomously on their own digital devices. Randomization is carried out by KANTAR Public at the individual level, using a computer.
Experimental Design Details
Our experiment is structured as follows:
Respondents will be randomly assigned (between subject) to treatment 1 (p=1/3), treatment 2 (p=1/3) or the control group (p=1/3).

Sequence of events in the treatment group 1:
1. Belief elicitation about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance
2. Information provision (unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance)
3. Elicitation of perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic/educational success
4. Elicitation of preferences towards equity-enhancing education policies
5. Elicitation of donations to charities, support educational equality
6. Elicitation of respondents’ subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the transition from primary school to Gymnasium

Sequence of events in the treatment group 2:
1. Belief elicitation about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance
2. Information provision (unconditional and conditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance)
3. Elicitation of perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic/educational success
4. Elicitation of preferences towards equity-enhancing education policies
5. Elicitation of donations to charities, support educational equality
6. Elicitation of respondents’ subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the transition from primary school to Gymnasium

Sequence of events in the control group:
1. Belief elicitation about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance
2. Elicitation of perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic/educational success
3. Elicitation of preferences towards equity-enhancing education policies
4. Elicitation of donations to charities, support educational equality
5. Elicitation of respondents’ subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the transition from primary school to Gymnasium

In addition to the main survey, we plan to conduct a follow-up survey about two weeks after main survey completion. In the follow-up survey, all respondents from the main survey will be invited to participate a second time. To investigate treatment effect persistence, all respondents will be asked (i) to state their beliefs about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance and (ii)to answer the control group versions of selected outcome questions (i.e. without the information intervention).
The sequence for the follow-up survey (same for all experimental groups):
1. Belief elicitation about the unconditional SES gap in Gymnasium attendance
2. Elicitation of perceptions of whether it is mainly luck or effort that determines economic/educational success
3. Elicitation of preferences towards equity-enhancing education policies
4. Elicitation of respondents’ subjective assessment of the importance of several aspects for the transition from primary school to Gymnasium
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by the survey company KANTAR Public, using a computer.
Randomization Unit
at the individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
4,000
Sample size: planned number of observations
4,000
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
4,000, 1/3 (app. 1333) will be assigned to each of the three experimental groups.
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