|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
completed
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
We examine the role of third-order beliefs in shaping potentially stigmatized public behavior. We hypothesize that information, in addition to its persuasive effects, potentially also affects behavior by providing an "excuse" for engaging in xenophobic actions, leading to changes in equilibrium expression even among people who do not necessarily believe the information. The central implication of our theoretical framework is that people make different inferences about agents who engage in xenophobic actions when they know those agents have an "excuse" for doing so, relative to when they believe those agents do not have an "excuse". In particular, our framework predicts that when making inferences about agents with an excuse, respondents will believe these agents to be more gullible and less biased than agents without an excuse. We test this prediction with an incentivized experiment eliciting respondents' beliefs about the gullibility and bias of agents who chose to donate to an anti-immigrant organization with or without an excuse.
|
After
We examine the role of third-order beliefs in shaping potentially stigmatized public behavior. We hypothesize that information, in addition to its persuasive effects, potentially also affects behavior by providing an "excuse" for engaging in xenophobic actions, leading to changes in equilibrium expression even among people who do not necessarily believe the information. The central implication of our theoretical framework is that people make different inferences about agents who engage in xenophobic actions when they know those agents have an "excuse" for doing so, relative to when they believe those agents do not have an "excuse". In particular, our framework predicts that when making inferences about agents with an excuse, respondents will believe these agents to be less biased than agents without an excuse. We test this prediction with an incentivized experiment eliciting respondents' beliefs about the characteristics of agents who chose to donate to an anti-immigrant organization with or without an excuse.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
February 19, 2020 03:22 PM
|
After
November 08, 2021 02:02 PM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Respondent's guesses as to their matched respondent's score on the Foreign Culture Tolerance Scale and the Gullibility Scale
|
After
Respondent's guesses as to their matched respondent's score on the Foreign Culture Tolerance Scale and the Gullibility Scale (experiment 1)
Respondent's decision of whether or not to authorize a $1 bonus to their matched respondent and their guess of whether or not their matched respondent donated to the organization (follow-up)
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We recruit respondents through Lucid, a survey provider.
|
After
For the first experiment, we recruit respondents through Lucid, a survey provider. For the follow-up experiment, we recruit them through Prolific, another survey provider.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
We target 3000 individuals (5163 individuals when pooling with pilot)
|
After
In the first experiment, we target 3000 individuals (5163 individuals when pooling with pilot)
In the second experiment, we target 1000 individuals per topic (illegal immigration or defunding the police) for a total of 2000 individuals.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
We target 3000 individuals (5163 individuals when pooling with pilot)
|
After
In the first experiment, we target 3000 individuals (5163 individuals when pooling with pilot)
In the second experiment, we target 1000 individuals per topic (illegal immigration or defunding the police) for a total of 2000 individuals.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
We target 750 individuals in excuse/gullibility, 750 individuals excuse/bias, 750 individuals no excuse/gullibility, 750 individuals no excuse/bias. To gain statistical precision, we also report some specifications in which we pool with additional pilot data (N=2163, with 517 excuse/gullibility, 510 excuse/bias, 502 no excuse/gullibility, and 511 no excuse/bias).
We ask our survey provider to restrict the survey to respondents who had not taken our pilot. To further ensure that our sample does not include repeat respondents, we also include a post-outcome question asking respondents whether they have taken a previous online survey that discussed the Lott study. We expect this number to be small and plan to exclude respondents who respond in the affirmative from our main specifications (though we will also report results with the entire sample).
|
After
In the first experiment, we target 750 individuals in excuse/gullibility, 750 individuals excuse/bias, 750 individuals no excuse/gullibility, 750 individuals no excuse/bias. To gain statistical precision, we also report some specifications in which we pool with additional pilot data (N=2163, with 517 excuse/gullibility, 510 excuse/bias, 502 no excuse/gullibility, and 511 no excuse/bias). In the second experiment, we target 500 individuals per treatment arm (excuse/no excuse) per topic (illegal immigration/defunding the police).
In the first experiment, we ask our survey provider to restrict the survey to respondents who had not taken our pilot. To further ensure that our sample does not include repeat respondents, we also include a post-outcome question asking respondents whether they have taken a previous online survey that discussed the Lott study. We expect this number to be small and plan to exclude respondents who respond in the affirmative from our main specifications (though we will also report results with the entire sample).
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Crime Violence And Conflict, Electoral, Labor
|
After
Crime Violence And Conflict, Electoral, Labor
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
We randomize respondents into one of two conditions: "excuse" or "no excuse". We provide respondents with information about a recent study (Lott 2018) that finds that undocumented immigrants in Arizona commit crimes at substantially higher rates than comparable US citizens. We (truthfully) tell participants that they have been matched with another participant who chose to authorize a donation to Fund the Wall (www.fundthewall.com), an organization that supports the proposed US-Mexico border wall. Participants in the "no excuse" group are told that their matched respondent did not see the information about Lott's study before donating, whereas participants in the "excuse" group are told that their matched respondent did see the information.
Participants are then cross-randomized into one of two conditions: "bias" or "gullibility". Participants in the "bias" group are asked to guess their matched respondent's score on a Foreign Culture Tolerance Scale, which measures "tolerance toward foreign values and traditions" on a scale from 0-100. Participants in the "gullibility" group are asked to guess their matched respondent's score on a Gullibility Scale, which measures "how easily people are manipulated by evidence from untrustworthy sources" on a scale from 0 to 100. Both guesses are incentivized: participants are told that if they guess correctly, they will be entered into a lottery for a $50 Amazon gift card.
References: Lott, John R., Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona (February 10, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3099992 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099992
|
After
We randomize respondents into one of two conditions: "excuse" or "no excuse". We provide respondents with information about a recent study (Lott 2018) that finds that undocumented immigrants in Arizona commit crimes at substantially higher rates than comparable US citizens. We (truthfully) tell participants that they have been matched with another participant who chose to authorize a donation to Fund the Wall (www.fundthewall.com), an organization that supports the proposed US-Mexico border wall. Participants in the "no excuse" group are told that their matched respondent did not see the information about Lott's study before donating, whereas participants in the "excuse" group are told that their matched respondent did see the information.
Participants are then cross-randomized into one of two conditions: "bias" or "gullibility". Participants in the "bias" group are asked to guess their matched respondent's score on a Foreign Culture Tolerance Scale, which measures "tolerance toward foreign values and traditions" on a scale from 0-100. Participants in the "gullibility" group are asked to guess their matched respondent's score on a Gullibility Scale, which measures "how easily people are manipulated by evidence from untrustworthy sources" on a scale from 0 to 100. Both guesses are incentivized: participants are told that if they guess correctly, they will be entered into a lottery for a $50 Amazon gift card.
Our follow-up experiment is similar, but differs in the following respects. First, we tell participants that they have been matched with another participant who chose to join a campaign either to illegally deport all illegal immigrants or to oppose defunding the police, and authorized a Tweet encouraging their followers to do the same (see AEARCTR-0007379 for additional details on this Tweet). Participants in the "no excuse" group see a Tweet indicating that the matched respondent saw the rationale -- a video or article in support of the action -- after making the decision to join the campaign, while those in the "excuse" group see a Tweet indicating that the matched respondent saw the rationale beforehand. They then have the opportunity to authorize a $1 bonus to their matched respondent. Finally, they guess whether their matched respondent donated to an organization related to the cause.
References: Lott, John R., Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona (February 10, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3099992 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099992
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|