Experience of social mobility and support for redistribution: Beating the odds or blaming the system?

Last registered on June 30, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Experience of social mobility and support for redistribution: Beating the odds or blaming the system?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007580
Initial registration date
April 19, 2021

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
April 20, 2021, 6:29 AM EDT

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

Last updated
June 30, 2021, 9:38 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
King's College London

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-04-21
End date
2021-09-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Perceptions of social mobility in society are one of the most important determinants of individuals’ preferences for redistribution and tolerance for economic inequalities. How the experience of social mobility affects people’s redistributive preferences is however so far little understood. Using cross-country survey data, a newly generated dataset on social mobility and a survey experiment, I examine the effects of experienced social mobility on support for redistribution at the individual level. The survey data, including respondents from 27 countries questioned across three decades, indicates a divide between people who experienced downward mobility as opposed to upward mobility – experiencing downward mobility increases support for redistribution while experiencing upward mobility does not affect redistributive preferences. This finding can be explained by how people’s own mobility experience affects their perceptions of opportunities within society. In line with the self-serving bias, those with negative mobility experiences ‘blame the system’ and extrapolate from their negative experience onto society at large, which increases their demand for redistribution. Conversely, those who experienced positive mobility believe they ‘beat the odds’ and, therefore, do not extrapolate from their experience onto perceptions of societal mobility, leading to no less support for redistribution. This relationship suggests significant implications at the aggregate: As overall absolute mobility increases, ceteris paribus, demand for redistribution rises. In an online survey experiment I test the causality of this mechanism.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Weber, Nina. 2021. "Experience of social mobility and support for redistribution: Beating the odds or blaming the system?." AEA RCT Registry. June 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7580-1.1
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2021-04-21
Intervention End Date
2021-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Support for redistribution measured as agreement with a set of four different statements on governmental redistribution as well as an additional question on support for an increase in the top income tax share (based on the ISSP Social Inequality Module).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Perceptions of social mobility in society and perceived personal benefits from governmental redistribution.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment will be coded in Qualtrics with a representative subject pool of the United States population recruited via Prolific Academic. I will provide respondents with information on their personal intergenerational mobility experience and test how this information, if contradictory to their previously held beliefs, changes their support for redistribution.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Simple randomization done automatically via Qualtrics.
Randomization Unit
Individual randomization
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
900 subjects in a first experiment and, depending on the available funding, a second experiment with 3,200 additional subjects.
Sample size: planned number of observations
900 subjects in a first experiment and, depending on the available funding, a second experiment with 3,200 additional subjects.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
450 subjects in treatment and control in the first experiment, respectively. 1,600 in treatment and control, respectively, in a potential second experiment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
King's College London
IRB Approval Date
2020-09-23
IRB Approval Number
MRSP-19/20-21021
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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