x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
LGBTQ+ individuals, social preferences, and cooperation
Last registered on October 05, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
LGBTQ+ individuals, social preferences, and cooperation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006100
Initial registration date
September 15, 2020
Last updated
October 05, 2020 12:06 PM 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
University of East Anglia
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
PI Affiliation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2020-09-22
End date
2021-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
While attitudes toward members of the LGBTQ+ community in the US have improved over the past few decades, there is mixed evidence concerning their socioeconomic status and labor market outcomes. This project focuses on pro-social attitudes towards LGBTQ+ members. These pro-social attitudes are important features that can have a crucial impact on individuals’ wellbeing and productivity (e.g., in the workplace). Using a novel method to reveal the LGBTQ+ identities of members in an experimental setting, we examine whether individuals exhibit different pro-social attitudes towards members and non-members of the community. We also study whether individuals expect different pro-social attitudes towards non-heterosexual individuals. The findings from this project will form the basis of a broader research agenda on the economics of discrimination specific to LGBTQ+ individuals, and will contribute to debates on the appropriate policies to address discrimination against these individuals both in the workplace and the community at large.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Aksoy, Billur, Ian Chadd and Boon Han Koh. 2020. "LGBTQ+ individuals, social preferences, and cooperation." AEA RCT Registry. October 05. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6100-4.0.
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2020-09-22
Intervention End Date
2021-12-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcome variables are:
(i) Recipients’ ID-flag choices
(ii) Amount sent by dictators in the dictator game
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Our secondary outcome variables are:
(i) Recipients’ ID-string choices
(ii) Dictators’ beliefs about demographics of matched recipients
(iii) Recipients’ earnings
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Participants will be assigned either the role of the Dictator or the Recipient. The experiment will be conducted asynchronously via Prolific, where recipients will be asked to make their decisions first (Part 1), followed by dictators at a later stage (Part 2).

The Recipient’s LGBTQ+ identity will be revealed to the Dictator in a non-intrusive manner.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We follow a two-by-two treatment design.

On the recipient’s end, they will be randomly assigned to either the ID-First or ID-Second treatments. This will be randomly determined at the individual level within the same session such that we have a balanced sample of recipients in each treatment.

On the dictator’s end, they will be randomly assigned to either the Pride-First or Pride-Second treatments. This will be randomly determined at the individual level via a virtual coin toss that is programmed in the experimental software (oTree).
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is at the individual level for dictators and at the session level for recipients.

However, given that this is an online experiment conducted via Prolific, there are no “physical” sessions per se since each session will run continuously until the required number of participants is fulfilled. Both dictators and recipients make their decisions independently at their own pace, and they can start and complete the experiment at any time while the session is live. Moreover, participants do not receive any feedback until the conclusion of all experiments (i.e., both recipients’ and dictators’ sessions). Hence, for our econometric analysis of participants’ behavior, we will assume that the unit of randomization is at the individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
640 (360 dictators and 280 recipients)
Sample size: planned number of observations
640 (360 dictators and 280 recipients)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Recipients:
Sample size per group = 70
Number of groups = 4 (Heterosexual vs. Non-Heterosexual, ID-First vs. ID-Second)
Note: We will recruit a gender-balanced sample (i.e., equal number of males and females) of heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals.

Dictators:
Sample size per group = 180
Number of groups = 2 (Heterosexual vs. Non-Heterosexual)
Note: We will recruit our sample of heterosexual individuals such that they are balanced across different political affiliations (Democrat, Republican and Independent/Other).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Recipients: - Overall, power calculation is based on: (i) a drop in Pride flag choices from 75% to 55%; (ii) one-tailed test of difference between two independent proportions; (iii) Type I error rate of 0.05 and power of 0.80. - Minimum required sample size per group = 70. Our primary conjecture is that non-heterosexual individuals will be less likely to choose the Pride flag in treatment ID-second than in treatment ID-first due to anticipated discrimination. Given this, we consider a one-tailed test for our power calculation. Our initial survey indicates that about 75% of non-heterosexual individuals choose the Pride flag in the absence of strategic concerns. Dictators: - Overall, power calculation is based on: (i) an effect size of 0.25 standard deviations change in giving amount between two recipients; (ii) two-tailed test of difference between two dependent means (matched pairs); (iii) Type I error rate of 0.05 and power of 0.80. - Minimum required sample size per group = 128. Actual sample recruited is higher to allow for heterogeneous treatment effects. Our primary conjecture is that average giving will be lower to individuals who chose the Pride flag as opposed to those who chose the non-Pride flag. However, potential in-group bias by non-heterosexual dictators (e.g., gay dictators) towards those who choose the Pride flag may mean higher given to this group. Given this, we consider a two-tailed test for our power calculation.
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of East Anglia School of Economics Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2020-02-20
IRB Approval Number
0328
IRB Name
The Rensselaer Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2020-08-18
IRB Approval Number
1932
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information