x

We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
Does Past Territorial Expansion Shape Preferences on Future Expansion?
Last registered on July 16, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Does Past Territorial Expansion Shape Preferences on Future Expansion?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004449
Initial registration date
July 15, 2019
Last updated
July 16, 2019 9:20 AM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
George Washington University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-07-18
End date
2020-09-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study assesses whether a country’s recent territorial expansion tends to whet or satiate “appetites” for further territorial expansion. Taking the case of Russia, which expanded by annexing the Crimean peninsula in 2014, it exposes randomly selected individuals either to be in a control group or to be exposed to one of the following three primes: a generic reminder that borders sometimes change in the course of history (a placebo), a statement that Russia incorporated Crimea in 2014, and the same statement about having incorporated combined with a statement that this prompted Western opposition and economic sanctions. The study then assesses whether these different primes are systematically associated with preferences regarding what the borders of Russia should be, with options including two shrinkage options, two expansion options, and one status quo option. The possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects will be explored, particularly regarding age, gender, education, ethnicity, and geographic place.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Hale, Henry. 2019. "Does Past Territorial Expansion Shape Preferences on Future Expansion?." AEA RCT Registry. July 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4449-1.0.
Former Citation
Hale, Henry. 2019. "Does Past Territorial Expansion Shape Preferences on Future Expansion?." AEA RCT Registry. July 16. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4449/history/50116.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
All respondents in a sample of adults in the Russian Federation designed to be nationally representative are given a question soliciting preferences regarding the ideal borders of Russia. Prior to receiving the question, respondents are given one of four different preambles.
Intervention Start Date
2019-07-18
Intervention End Date
2019-07-24
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
The outcome variable is a categorical variable with five options regarding abstract preferences for Russian borders: 1. status quo minus Islamic parts of the North Caucasus, 2. status quo minus Crimea, 3. status quo, 4. status quo plus former Soviet lands populated by Slavs, and 4. the old Soviet borders. Of primary interest is the distinction between options that explicitly involve expansion (responses 4 and 5) and those that do not (all the rest). Of secondary importance is the distinction between options 4 and 5. Of tertiary interest is the distinction between those who support giving up Crimea (option 2) and the rest.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The outcome of primary interest is the differences in the responses produced by the control and the three treatments. These differences will enable the researcher to examine the extent to which having an instance of recent territorial expansion in mind (in this case, Crimea) influences preferences regarding future potential expansion and the degree to which this is moderated by having negative consequences of expansion in mind.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The experiment (full text attached to this registry) is embedded in the monthly omnibus survey of the highly reputable independent Russian firm Levada Market Research (LMR), using their standard methodology.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Roughly equal proportions of CAPI and PAPI respondents will receive each treatment. For the CAPI respondents in the sample, randomization is achieved using the randomization feature of the software Simpleforms, designed specifically for survey research. For the PAPI respondents in the sample, the research uses the randomization feature of the software Microsoft Excel to randomly assign one of the four versions of the randomized-preamble question described above to the number of each questionnaire to be administered as part of LMR’s omnibus survey. The survey agency then creates single-page “inserts,” with each insert containing only the correct version of the question to be administered for its assigned questionnaire and the number of that assigned questionnaire. The inserts are then inserted into the questionnaire assigned to that insert. The questionnaire itself (independently of the insert) contains not the actual question, but instructions for the enumerator to use the insert and instructions for recording the respondent’s response (count).
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
137 PSUs
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,602 adult residents of the Russian Federation
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
About 400 control, about 400 each for three treatments
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
George Washington University
IRB Approval Date
2019-07-02
IRB Approval Number
031629
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information