Back to History Current Version

Effects of COVID-19 Information Cues on Social Distancing

Last registered on April 02, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Effects of COVID-19 Information Cues on Social Distancing
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005611
Initial registration date
April 01, 2020

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 02, 2020, 12:10 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)

PI Affiliation
American University

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2020-04-03
End date
2020-07-10
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic calls for collective action. In efforts to slow down the spread of the virus, governments across the globe are instructing citizens to maintain a physical distance from others and avoid crowds (“social distancing”). Public health authorities and experts agree that minimizing physical contact between people is a key measure for mitigating the COVID-19 outbreak. But what kind of information is most effective for eliciting social distancing compliance? The study examines how different COVID-19 information cues—appealing to prosocial motivation and empathy in varying degree—affect self-reported social distancing compliance. Using a split-ballot survey experiment, a non-probability sample of US residents are exposed to one of five information cues. We examine intention-to-treat effects in relation to two social distancing outcomes.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Favero, Nathan and Mogens Jin Pedersen. 2020. "Effects of COVID-19 Information Cues on Social Distancing." AEA RCT Registry. April 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5611-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention consists of manipulation of COVID-19 information in an online survey.
Intervention Start Date
2020-04-03
Intervention End Date
2020-04-10

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
(1) Number of weeks that respondents are willing to follow official recommendations to stay at home as much as possible and avoiding all social contact (i.e., adhering to social distancing).

(2) An index of specific social distancing behaviors.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The “social distancing” index is constructed based on responses to five survey items:

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? During the next few weeks…
(a) I will meet with friends or relatives who live outside my own household.
(b) I will make the fewest possible trips to the grocery store.
(c) I will be at places where other people will also be (café, restaurant, specialty shops, church, etc.).
(d) I will avoid all social gatherings (i.e., adhere to so-called “social distancing”).
(e) I will strongly encourage others to avoid all social contact (i.e., adhere to so-called “social distancing”).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
As additional analyses, we estimate intention-to-treat effects in relation to four survey items capturing COVID-19-related attitudes and beliefs.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study involves a five-armed, parallel-design, individually randomized trial—in the form of a split ballot survey experiment. The experiment is carried out among a non-probability sample of US residents. All survey respondents are presented with information about the COVID-19 situation. After an introductory text (identical across experimental conditions), respondents are exposed to one of five informational cues.
Experimental Design Details
The study involves a five-armed, parallel-design, individually randomized trial—in the form of a split ballot survey experiment. The experiment is carried out among a non-probability sample of US residents. Participants are recruited via Prolific. All survey respondents are presented with information about the COVID-19 situation. After an introductory text (identical across experimental conditions), respondents are exposed to one of five informational cues.

One group (control group) receive the following text: “We know that COVID-19 is spreading rapidly. It is true that many people survive the illness. But people with COVID-19 can start spreading the virus days before they realize they have it.”

The remaining respondents receive the same text, but are additionally exposed to one of the following four information cues:

Treatment 1: “Remember, your personal health is at stake. Even young, healthy adults who are exposed to the virus may get seriously ill and require intensive hospital treatment.”
Treatment 2: “Remember, you play a critical role in helping to stop the spread of the virus. Any of us could accidently pass the virus on to a close friend or family member who is not in good health.”
Treatment 3: “Remember, you play a critical role in helping to stop the spread of the virus. Unless we all work together, the virus may spread to the people who are most likely to die from it.”
Treatment 4: “Remember, you play a critical role in helping to stop the spread of the virus. Unless we all work together, the virus may overwhelm our hospitals and they won’t be able to give everyone the treatment they need.”
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by simple randomization by computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual survey respondent.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1,500 respondents.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,500 respondents.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
300 in Control, 300 in Treatment 1, 300 in Treatment 2, 300 in Treatment 3, and 300 in Treatment 4.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Under the assumption of 1,500 valid responses and balanced groups, our study is powered to enable detecting of effects of f > .10 with high statistical power (Power = .90; alpha = .05, two-tailed).
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
American University Review Board for Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB)
IRB Approval Date
2020-04-01
IRB Approval Number
IRB-2020-299
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Analysis+Plan.txt

MD5: fea815e3926915498b04f3668297386f

SHA1: 7040aaec7b6367b472fab051818cc5de2039a38f

Uploaded At: April 01, 2020

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?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
April 10, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
April 10, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
1,502
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
1,502 respondents
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
App. 300 respondents in each of five treatment arms
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
Yes

Program Files

Program Files
Yes
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials

Description
Journal Article
Citation
Nathan Favero and Mogens Jin Pedersen. 2020. How to Encourage ‘Togetherness by Keeping Apart’ Amid COVID-19? The Ineffectiveness of Prosocial and Empathy Appeals. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.32.167