Addressing Sucker Aversion

Last registered on March 20, 2023


Trial Information

General Information

Addressing Sucker Aversion
Initial registration date
July 20, 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
July 23, 2021, 4:11 PM EDT

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

Last updated
March 20, 2023, 2:20 PM EDT

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


Primary Investigator

Bates College

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Skidmore College

Additional Trial Information

Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Our work studies sucker aversion, an aversion to being or being seen as a naïve cooperator. In our study, suckers are identified as people who use the possibility (no matter how miniscule) that an undeserving other (a country club) might receive a payoff as an excuse to forego donating to charity. We specifically investigate the relationship between sucker aversion types and a set of information treatments. To test our hypotheses, we implement a Qualtrics survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk with about 400 participants.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Dentler, Rachel and Sandra Goff. 2023. "Addressing Sucker Aversion." AEA RCT Registry. March 20.
Experimental Details


Participants make choices within a series of price lists similar to Exley (2016) and Goff (2021). Afterwards, they receive information about a charitable organization and are asked whether they would like to donate a portion of their bonus to the charity. The information the participant receives regarding the charity is randomized.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Lottery valuation (V), choice of lottery or certain payoff (A), donation behavior (donated/didn't donate (D) AND donation amount as percent of bonus (S)), participant type, policy support
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Please see pre-analysis plan document for detailed descriptions.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
After implementing the procedures from Goff (2021), we randomly present participants with different information conditions about a charitable organization, and then ask them to donate a portion of their earned bonus. We include four different informational conditions (one control and three treatments) to assess how information affects donation behavior: 1) a control in which participants will receive only a basic description of the charity, 2) basic description + information about financial management of charitable funds, 3) basic description + information about a specific beneficiary meant to create an identifiable victim effect, the phenomenon where a donor gives more when there is a specific identified individual that they are helping as opposed to a larger group, and 4) basic description + a warm glow message in which the participant will receive information about how their donation will help make them feel happier and feel like a better person for helping others. Rather than focus on the benefits to the recipient of the donation, this final condition is designed to trigger the participant’s personal feelings of “warm-glow” from giving.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization to information condition will be determined by a Qualtrics procedure.
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
400 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 general info, 100 impact info, 100 identifiable victim, 100 warm glow
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Using an online a priori calculator for multiple regression analysis, a minimum sample size of 345 participants is necessary to find an effect size of 0.10 at α = 0.01 with a statistical power of 0.90 and approximately 18 predictors. We will recruit a sample size 400 participants to ensure statistical power of at least 0.80 with exclusions.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Skidmore College IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials