x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Understanding social support for markets and “just prices”
Last registered on June 10, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Understanding social support for markets and “just prices”
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007531
Initial registration date
April 22, 2021
Last updated
June 10, 2021 5:19 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Toronto
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Johns Hopkins University
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2021-04-28
End date
2021-06-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We conduct randomized survey experiments with US and Canadian residents to study attitudes toward market-based transactions, with a specific focus on whether and how people perceive and elaborate tradeoffs between competing values and goals. In our survey, participants will express their views and preferences over scenarios where companies increase the prices of certain goods in particular circumstances and scenarios where public authorities prohibit these price increases. Our sample will include 4,000 Americans and 4,000 Canadians and it will be representative of the respective populations in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, age, and educational attainment.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Lacetera, Nicola and Mario Macis. 2021. "Understanding social support for markets and “just prices”." AEA RCT Registry. June 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7531-1.1.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Our study will be based on an online experimental survey with respondents randomly assigned to different conditions. Our sample will include 4,000 Americans and 4,000 Canadians and it will be representative of the respective populations in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, age, and educational attainment. We will rely on the survey company Respondy for the recruitment.

A QSF file of the survey, reporting all conditions, is attached (not public), including the US version of the survey. The Canadian version is identical with just a few exceptions, to adapt it to the different institutional and geographical context (the questions about residence list Canadian provinces instead of US states, the questions about voting behavior in the most recent election concern the parliamentary elections in 2019 instead of the 2020 US presidential elections, and so on).

In addition to an initial set of screening questions where we establish quotas to make the sample representative in terms of age, educational attainment, gender, and race/ethnicity, the survey has five parts.

Part 1 of the survey will include general information as well as walk informed consent text.

Part 2 will include socio-demographic questions.

Part 3 represents the main randomized intervention. In this part, each respondent will evaluate the morality of and express their policy preference between two scenarios, one where the price of a product is fully determined by a company (or "the market"), and one in which a public authority imposes a price cap.

In part 4, we will ask participants about their opinions on the role of the markets and the government in an economy, and the extent to which they think the government should intervene to guarantee access to certain products. There will also be a trolley problem- like dilemma in this part.

In part 5, participants will answer questions about their time preferences, general trust in others, and pro-social preferences. With a probability of 1/4, respondents will also have the opportunity to donate $1 to a foundation that promotes free, unfettered markets (the Future of Freedom Foundation). More specifically, participants will gain $1 if they allow the researchers to donate $1 to this organization.

Note: Funding for the donation module of this study was provided by a University of Toronto’ Sandra Rotman Centre for Health Sector Strategy grant. The donation module was included purely for research purposes and it does not represent an endorsement of the organization by Johns Hopkins University or the University of Toronto, or by the authors of the study.
Intervention Start Date
2021-04-28
Intervention End Date
2021-06-30
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcome of interest is the proportion of respondents, for each condition, who select the unregulated pricing scenario as their preferred one. We are also interested in the moral views of the respondents for each scenario.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
In addition to asking to select one of the two scenarios as their preferred policy, the survey will also include an open text question where the respondents will motivate their choice. We plan to perform some text analyses (word frequencies, sentiment analysis, etc.) on these motivations.

We will also assess the consistency between the state choices of a scenario and the donation choice for the respondents assigned to having the donation opportunity. In particular, we want to see whether those who prefer the free pricing option ae more likely to donate to the foundation that promotes unfettered markets.

Finally, we will determine to what extent the main outcomes of interest depend on overall attitudes toward market and governments, and whether the moral views on he specific scenarios correlate with the scenario choices.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The experimental components of the survey will concern part 3 and part 5 described above.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We will run our survey on Qualtrics and rely on their randomization procedure.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
We will survey 4000 US residents and 4000 residents in Canada
Sample size: planned number of observations
8000
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Each treatment arm will occur with equal probability.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Toronto REB
IRB Approval Date
2021-01-01
IRB Approval Number
40280
IRB Name
JHU Homewood Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2020-12-15
IRB Approval Number
00012177
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information