Encouraging Social Distancing

Last registered on August 26, 2020
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Encouraging Social Distancing
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005612
Initial registration date
March 30, 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
March 31, 2020, 3:12 PM EDT

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

Last updated
August 26, 2020, 5:47 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region
CA

Primary Investigator

Name
Ketki Sheth
Affiliation
UC Merced
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Greg Wright
PI Affiliation
UC Merced
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2020-03-19
End date
2021-08-31
Keywords
Health
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We randomly assign economic undergraduate students to three treatment arms: control, information that highlights the personal benefits of social distancing, and information that highlights the externalities (i.e., benefits to others) by socially distancing. Using a pooled-cross sectional analysis, with anonymous survey data before and after receipt of the intervention, we test whether highlighting benefits increased social distancing, and whether information on personal benefits was more or less effective than information on externalities.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Sheth, Ketki and Greg Wright. 2020. "Encouraging Social Distancing." AEA RCT Registry. August 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5612-1.2000000000000002
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention is one of two short lecture videos provided by a professor in the economics department at the student's university. The first lecture provides information on the personal benefits for social distancing (and why the true benefits may be higher than perceived benefits), and the second lecture provides information on the externalities of social distancing (and why the total social benefit may be higher than the private benefit). The same framework is used in both videos.
Intervention Start Date
2020-03-25
Intervention End Date
2020-05-09

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Social distancing: Indicator for socially interacting for non-essential reasons in the previous 24 hours; the number of people with which one socially interacted; the length of time one socially interacted. We exclude social interaction with people living in the same home, and interactions for obtaining food, health care, or banking services.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Changes in Beliefs of Covid-19 Impact; Depressive Symptoms; Added Detail on social interaction
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Changes in Beliefs of Covid-19 Impact: Likert scales on the seriousness of Covid-19 infection for younger adults, the effectiveness of social distancing on reducing spread of Covid-19, and the effectiveness of social distancing on reducing economic impact of Covid-19; Expected Unemployment in California in June 2020
Depressive Symptoms: A list of 9 symptoms is given to the subject, and they are asked how many of the symptoms they have experienced in the previous 48 hours.
Added Detail on Social Interaction: Social Interaction for essential services (i.e., food, health care, and banking services), and social interaction for work related purposes.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We randomly assign economic undergraduate students to three treatment arms: control (basic information on social distancing), information that highlights the personal benefits of social distancing, and information that highlights the externalities (i.e., benefits to others) by socially distancing. Using a pooled-cross sectional analysis, with anonymous survey data before and after receipt of the intervention, we test whether highlighting benefits increased social distancing, and whether information on personal benefits was more or less effective than information on externalities.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done through Catcourses (i.e., Canvas) software in multiple courses in sequential order. For subjects that were in multiple classes, the first randomization status was maintained.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
0
Sample size: planned number of observations
300 to 6000 subjects (individuals)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Expected Sample Size per Treatment Arm is 100 or more.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UC Merced IRB
IRB Approval Date
2020-03-25
IRB Approval Number
UCM2020-46
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Preanalysis+Plan_updated+for+panel.docx

MD5: 158c1e50d2340d7efd47c056fc5db40e

SHA1: fdc104a28b25feee47e04fede108cfa9b40a6d61

Uploaded At: April 08, 2020

Preanalysis Plan

MD5: 5339bdb82466415d8f5dd3bd347eecdb

SHA1: caeff565c64a104f6a88e592dee5c203b3427729

Uploaded At: March 30, 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?
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