Back to History Current Version

How Voting Rules Impact Legitimacy

Last registered on June 25, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Impact of Consensus-Orientation on Legitimacy Ratings
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007871
Initial registration date
June 24, 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
June 25, 2021, 1:41 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Switzerland
Region
Zurich

Primary Investigator

Name
Carina Ines Hausladen
Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Evangelos Pournaras
PI Affiliation
University of Leeds
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Dirk Helbing
PI Affiliation
ETH Zurich
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Renato Kunz
PI Affiliation
ETZ Zurich
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-07-01
End date
2021-07-31
Keywords
Behavior, Governance
Additional Keywords
legitimacy, voting mechanism, consensus-orientation
JEL code(s)
D72
Secondary IDs
EK 2021-N-28
Abstract
Rendering decision-making procedures more legitimate in the eyes of citizens is crucial: High ratings of legitimacy build the basis for a functioning democracy and citizens' wilful compliance with regulations.
Experimental studies have shown—amongst others—deliberation, participation, and consensus-orientation to increase legitimacy ratings.
In this study, we chose to experimentally manipulate consensus orientation by introducing several voting mechanisms (IV) to quantify the impact on legitimacy (DV).
Legitimacy is measured via self-report: Participants provide legitimacy ratings after voting upon choice options within two different contexts, as well as after observing the poll's outcome (within-subjects design).
The experiment will be conducted online, deploying an Android-based app that was specifically designed for this purpose.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Hausladen, Carina Ines et al. 2021. "The Impact of Consensus-Orientation on Legitimacy Ratings." AEA RCT Registry. June 25. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7871-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention follows a between-subjects design: Participants provide legitimacy ratings at three different stages of the experiment. The ratings vary w.r.t. context and whether they were provided after voting or examining outcomes of the vote.
Intervention Start Date
2021-07-01
Intervention End Date
2021-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The main dependent variable is a participant's (self-reported) legitimacy rating.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Legitimacy is proxied by the concepts of fairness, trust, influence and acceptance. More precisely, participants are asked: "I would comply with the result and accept it as fair reflecting my and others' opinions."

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment has three main stages. At each stage, participants provide legitimacy ratings, varying the context and action preceding the rating.
In stage I, participants vote upon a trivial, non-critical context (their favourite colour). Subsequently, they provide legitimacy ratings.
In stage II, participants vote upon a complex, critical context (COVID-19). Subsequently, they provide legitimacy ratings.
Finally, in stage III, participants observe the outcome of the vote and subsequently provide legitimacy ratings.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by a python-based algorithm.
Randomization Unit
As there is no treatment involved, no randomization of allocating participants to treatments is necessary. What is randomized is the order of the different questions and within questions their respective options, that participants vote upon.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200–300 participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
Each participant provides 16 votes (4 questions* 4 voting methods) and 24 legitimacy ratings (4 + 4 + 16).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
200–300 participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Two-sample t-test power calculation n = 30.4263 d = 0.8449776 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.9 alternative = two.sided NOTE: n is number in *each* group
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
ETH Ethics Commission
IRB Approval Date
2021-06-22
IRB Approval Number
EK-2021-N-28-A
Analysis Plan

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