Natives' and immigrants' preferences for redistribution

Last registered on August 09, 2021


Trial Information

General Information

Natives' and immigrants' preferences for redistribution
Initial registration date
April 21, 2021
Last updated
August 09, 2021, 2:05 AM EDT



Primary Investigator

University of Vienna

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Vienna
PI Affiliation
University of Vienna

Additional Trial Information

On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
The intuition behind this study is that those who have a history of building a welfare state (henceforth called natives) may form subjective entitlements to this welfare state. This perception would be observable in their reluctance to share their welfare with those who have no history of building it (henceforth called immigrants) even when not sharing is costly (i.e., decreases efficiency).
To test this intuition, we design an experiment in which subjects are paired and proceeds symbolizing the welfare are to be divided between them. To create a situation analogous to building a welfare state, one member of a pair is randomly selected as the one responsible for creating proceeds to be divided, holding productivity constant between parties. That is, credit for having created the proceeds is determined through a random assignment, which is public knowledge for everyone.
Orthogonally, we also systematically pair subjects based on whether or not they have real-life migration backgrounds.
That is, in half of the pairs (called homo pairs), partners are either both migrants or were both born in the UK, while in the other half of the treatments (called hetero pairs), pairs are mixed with respect to their migration backgrounds (i.e., a migrant is paired with a UK born
Additionally, we collect unbiased third parties' views about the fair division of resources between parties.
This setup allows us to test whether beliefs about the fair division of the proceeds diverge more between parties in the homo than in the hetero pairs, and also whether those named responsible for creating the to-be-divided resources would believe they deserve and also claim a higher share than those who are not responsible for creating it. Additionally, we test whether these two channels interact. Finally, we are able to explore unbiased third parties' views about the fair solution.
Finally, we also control for the heterogeneity of subjects’ pre-treatment attitudes towards (1) immigration to and immigrants in the UK, (2) Brexit votes,(3) redistribution in general, and (4) efficiency concerns. This allows us to investigate whether treatment effects vary according to subjects’ characteristics along these aforementioned dimensions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Dezső, Linda, Christian Koch and Jean-Robert Tyran. 2021. "Natives' and immigrants' preferences for redistribution." AEA RCT Registry. August 09.
Sponsors & Partners


Experimental Details


Find experimental details (description, design, predictions, experimental code and material, and code to test predictions) in the attached document.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Subjects' beliefs about the fair division of resources and subjects distributive choices
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Subjects' attitudes towards immigrants to the UK and redistribution, votes at the Brexit referendum in 2016, and attitudes towards efficiency-inequality trade-off
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment employs one between-subject and two within-subject factors.
The between-subject factor:
1. Type of redistribution: (1) costly (2) costless redistribution.
All within-subject factors have 2 levels and they are the following:
1. Subejcts' role: (1) generator (2) not generator
2. Partner's immigration background: (1) same immigration background, (2) different immigration background

Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is done through the computer program
Randomization Unit
Individuals are randomized into different treatments
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
we have no clusters in this study
Sample size: planned number of observations
see above
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Based on sample size calculation (see sample size calculation code attached, see more details in the attached document), we need 304 subjects for each between-subject treatment arm. That is, we need an N=608
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
find details in attached document and code
Supporting Documents and Materials


Document Name
detailed preregistration
Document Type
Document Description
We include some motivation, detailed experimental design, procedure, predictions, and analysis plan.
detailed preregistration

MD5: 715d4d362dd544399fa00c2982e2acdc

SHA1: 0ef0847b0c04dfe0f4474488cc766a751627b4d4

Uploaded At: July 15, 2021


Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents