The effect of information on attitudes toward repugnant transactions

Last registered on January 30, 2017


Trial Information

General Information

The effect of information on attitudes toward repugnant transactions
Initial registration date
November 09, 2014

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
November 09, 2014, 4:15 PM EST

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

Last updated
January 30, 2017, 11:08 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.



Primary Investigator

University of Toronto

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
John Hopkins University
PI Affiliation
Universidad del CEMA

Additional Trial Information

Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
We experimentally investigate, through online trials, whether individuals change their beliefs about repugnant transactions after having received scientific, verifiable information about the costs and benefits of legalizing the transaction. The main focus is on payments for human organs.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Elias, Julio, Nicola Lacetera and Mario Macis. 2017. "The effect of information on attitudes toward repugnant transactions." AEA RCT Registry. January 30.
Former Citation
Elias, Julio, Nicola Lacetera and Mario Macis. 2017. "The effect of information on attitudes toward repugnant transactions." AEA RCT Registry. January 30.
Experimental Details


The recruitment includes 3,420 subjects via Amazon Mechanical Turk (‘mTurk”). Upon agreeing to participate to the study (described simply as a “computerized questionnaire”) and to receive $.75 upon its completion (the tasks altogether took about 5 minutes, making the implied hourly slightly above the mTurk average for North America), the subjects are randomly assigned to one of the following conditions:
• Control: subjects in this experimental condition are first asked to express an opinion about their support for legalizing payments for organ donors and their families. Then, they are administered a survey with questions about their demographics and socio-economic characteristics.
• Organ text: individuals in this treatment condition are first informed that a text will be administered to them, and a comprehension question on its content will be asked afterwards. The text reports information about the extent of organ supply shortage in the United States, and described a number of proposals that have been advanced to reduce such shortage, with references to the academic studies advancing these proposals. They include the implemented kidney exchange programs as well as studies on the effect of introducing monetary compensations of donors. After having read the text, a comprehension question is given to the subjects.
• “Placebo” text: this condition has the same structure as the organ text treatment; however, instead of a text on organ supply shortage, a “morally neutral” text, concerning the causes of the flu and remedies for it, as well as a related comprehension question, is provided to the subjects.

We employ the “Item Count Technique” to elicit support rates for organ payment. The ITC is based on not asking a question directly (e.g., “Would you support the implementation for regulated payments for organ donors or their families?”); instead, respondents are shown a set of statements, and are then requested to state how many apply to them. The control group is given a list of N “neutral” statements (i.e., non-sensitive in nature and not related to our topic of interest), whereas the treatment group is given N+1 sentences, of which N are the same as for the control group, and the additional item is the one of interest for the researcher. Thus the researcher cannot infer if a given respondent answered positively or negatively to a given item; only the total number of items that apply to an individual is identified. This preserves the privacy of the respondents and, together with the anonymity of the online survey, allays the concern that they might give what they perceive to be the “socially correct” answer. In our case, the hypothetical framework might lead to a downward bias if most respondents believe that paying for organs is generally considered morally wrong. With subjects assigned randomly to various experimental conditions, the choice of statements that are not perfectly correlated (so that most individuals do not agree with all of them or none of them, thus effectively revealing their opinion on each signal statement), and a large enough sample size, the difference in the average counts between treatment and control gives an estimate of the share of individuals in the population under study to which the phrase of interest applies. The key question in our survey asks the respondents to indicate how many of the listed statements apply to them. In the control condition, four statements were reported, and in the treatment conditions, the fifth statement is a sentence indicating that the respondent would support the establishment of a regulated system of payment for organs. Thus within each of the treatment conditions described above, subjects are further randomly divided in two subgroups, one receiving four statement, and one receiving five statements.

A similar design (but without a placebo group) is also implemented for two further activities: legalizing indoor prostitution, and legalizing slavery.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The main outcome of interest is the support level for establishing payments for human organs, in the different experimental conditions (estimated as the differences in average statements in the 4-statement and 5-statement condition, per treatment), and the differences between these rates.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Please see the description of the intervention above.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization by computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
no clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
about 400 per condition (by treatment and by 4-statement vs. 5-staments)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Given our chosen sample sizes (N = 400 subjects for each of our experimental conditions), our experiment is sufficiently powered to detect meaningful effect sizes with statistical precision. In particular, power calculations (Pearson’s chi-squared test of difference in proportions) indicate that our experiment will be able to detect a difference of 9.8 percentage points between treatment group and control group, assuming the following: (a) alpha = 0.05, (b) power = 0.8, and (c) proportion in favor of organ payments in the control group = 50 percent. Because we regard smaller differences as not being of academic or practical importance, we consider the minimal detectable effect reported above as being satisfactory.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
IRB Name
Johns Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials