Morals and Donations

Last registered on October 15, 2020
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Morals and Donations
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006592
Initial registration date
October 14, 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
October 15, 2020, 12:36 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Stephan Sommer
Affiliation
RWI - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Colin Vance
PI Affiliation
RWI - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Kostas Galanakis
PI Affiliation
Nottingham Trent University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2020-10-21
End date
2020-12-31
Keywords
Behavior, Environment & Energy
Additional Keywords
Moral cleansing, Field experiment, Environment
JEL code(s)
C93, D12, D91, Q50
Secondary IDs
Abstract
In this study, we extend the evidence for the relationship between identify (in terms of pro-environmental attitudes) and charitable giving. We conduct a discrete-choice experiment with randomized information treatments in a sample of about 400 students in the UK. Our expected outcome is that respondents who are subject to a treatment that evokes a recollection of “environmentally bad” behavior are more likely to cleanse by donating to a charity.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Galanakis, Kostas, Stephan Sommer and Colin Vance. 2020. "Morals and Donations." AEA RCT Registry. October 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6592-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
“In fact, for an individual who has taken a medium-haul flight (e.g. from UK to a Southern European destination) flying might represent up to 40% of her annual CO2 footprint.”

And in the other we frame is as impersonal:

“In fact, if you have taken a medium-haul flight (e.g. from UK to a Southern European destination), flying might represent up to 40% of your annual CO2 footprint.”

The idea behind the latter treatment is that it leads to higher donation rates because participants want to make up for the bad behavior. Specifically, we expect the personal statement to have a larger effect on donation rates.
Intervention Start Date
2020-10-21
Intervention End Date
2020-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
A binary variable that takes the value one if participant i is willing to donate the voucher and zero otherwise
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct our experiment with about 400 students in the UK. Potential participants are invited to take part in a survey, and we inform them that one out of four participants will win a voucher for UK’s largest retail store. The survey is expected to take less than 10 minutes, and respondents can complete it either at home or with mobile devices, having the possibility to interrupt and continue at any time.

We send out the invitation to the survey via email. Beside the experimental data, we will also gather some basic socio-economic characteristics and attitudes as well as environmental preferences. The survey will be launched in mid-October and stopped when the expected sample size is reached.

Our analysis aims at identifying how donation decisions are related to environmental behavior. To this end, we design an experiment that splits the participants into a control and two treatment groups. We explain that as gratitude for participating in the survey, we will randomly assign a voucher to one out of four participants. The outcome of interest is whether – conditional on winning – respondents take the voucher or donate it to an environmental charity.

While we ask participants in the control group, right away whether they are willing to keep or donate the voucher, we first inform participants in the treatment groups about the carbon footprint of the aviation sector. The difference between the two treatment groups is that in one we frame the treatment as personal and in the other as impersonal.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
400 students
Sample size: planned number of observations
400
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
around 133 per treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
18.5 percentage points.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
College Research Ethics Committee (CREC) at Nottingham Trent University
IRB Approval Date
2020-05-13
IRB Approval Number
2020/81
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

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