|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
August 16, 2023 06:57 AM
|
After
August 16, 2023 12:20 PM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v01a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”.
From the amounts given a structural model (a Cobb-Douglas impure altruism model) can be estimated yielding measures of generosity, altruistic motivation, and egoistic motivation. A second measure of generosity is simply the average amount each participant gives across her/his six decisions.
The longer-term outcomes are intended to determine whether the experimental conditions have effects that last beyond the conclusion of the experimental session.
|
After
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v02a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”.
From the amounts given a structural model (a Cobb-Douglas impure altruism model) can be estimated yielding measures of generosity, altruistic motivation, and egoistic motivation. A second measure of generosity is simply the average amount each participant gives across her/his six decisions.
The longer-term outcomes are intended to determine whether the experimental conditions have effects that last beyond the conclusion of the experimental session.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Session 2: The experimental design is between-subjects (3 x 1) and in each condition: within-subject (the six decisions).
The participants will be recruited by SSRS (and their partners) and invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) resident in the 44 Indiana counties close to Indianapolis, and not close to another city that has a children’s hospital, (2) 18 years or older, and (3) an equal number of women and men (to the best of SSRS’s ability to balance gender from the probability panels and the nonprobability panels).
Approximately one-third of the participants will be randomly assigned to each of the three conditions: control, e-mail, and video.
After watching the conditions, all participants fill out the Emotional Response Scale, the Principle of Care state measurement, and the Inclusion of Other in the Self. They then make their six decisions.
Then they answer the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Attention-Check question, the Principle of Care dispositional scale, gender, race/ethnicity, the Manipulation-Check questions, the experiment context questions, the questions about familiarity with the children’s hospital, the religion questions, and the political preference question.
At the very end, they decide whether they want a longer-term relationship with the hospital.
Session 1: The experimental design is also between-subjects (3 x 1) and in each condition: within-subject (the six decisions). The participants will be recruited by SSRS and invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) a resident of the Indiana-48 perimeter counties, IL, KY, MI, or OH, (2) 18 years or older, and (3) an equal number of women and men (again, to the best of SSRS’s ability to balance gender from the probability panel).
Approximately one-third of the participants will be randomly assigned to each of the three conditions: check nothing, check own payment, and check own payment as well as how much is going to the hospital.
Session 3: The experimental design is also between-subjects (3 x 1), but there is no within-subject variation (participants do not make six donation decisions). The three conditions are the same as in Session 2: control, e-mail, and video.
The participants will be QRS panel members invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) resident of IL, KY, MI, or OH, (2) 18 years or older, (3) an equal number of women and men, and (4) an age quota, so that the Qualtrics respondents match (approximately) the US age-sex distribution.
|
After
Session 2: The experimental design is between-subjects (3 x 1) and in each condition: within-subject (the six decisions).
The participants will be recruited by SSRS (and their partners) and invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) resident in the \sout{44} 92 Indiana counties \sout{close to Indianapolis, and not close to another city that has a children’s hospital}, (2) 18 years or older, and (3) an equal number of women and men (to the best of SSRS’s ability to balance gender from the probability panels and the nonprobability panels).
2023-08-16: All participants will complete five real-effort, bibliographic data entry tasks (10 to 15 minutes) to earn their payment (either $52 or $63).
Approximately one-third of the participants will be randomly assigned to each of the three conditions: control, e-mail, and video.
After watching the conditions, all participants fill out the Emotional Response Scale, the Principle of Care state measurement, and the Inclusion of Other in the Self. They then make their six decisions.
Then they answer the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Attention-Check question, the Principle of Care dispositional scale, gender, race/ethnicity, the Manipulation-Check questions, the experiment context questions, the questions about familiarity with the children’s hospital, the religion questions, and the political preference question.
At the very end, they decide whether they want a longer-term relationship with the hospital.
Session 1: The experimental design is also between-subjects (3 x 1) and in each condition: within-subject (the six decisions). The participants will be recruited by SSRS and invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) a resident of the Indiana-48 perimeter counties, IL, KY, MI, or OH, (2) 18 years or older, and (3) an equal number of women and men (again, to the best of SSRS’s ability to balance gender from the probability panel).
Approximately one-third of the participants will be randomly assigned to each of the three conditions: check nothing, check own payment, and check own payment as well as how much is going to the hospital.
Session 3: The experimental design is also between-subjects (3 x 1), but there is no within-subject variation (participants do not make six donation decisions). The three conditions are the same as in Session 2: control, e-mail, and video.
The participants will be QRS panel members invited to complete a study on “Individual Decision Making”. The inclusion criteria are: (1) resident of IL, KY, MI, or OH, (2) 18 years or older, (3) an equal number of women and men, and (4) an age quota, so that the Qualtrics respondents match (approximately) the US age-sex distribution.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
Session 1: N = 270 SSRS participants (in Indiana-48 perimeter counties and IL, KY, MI, OH). Probability-based sample.
Session 2: N = 575 to 600 SSRS, Ipsos, Prodege, QuestMindShare participants (in Indiana-44).
N = 260 Probability-based sample (SSRS and Ipsos). N = 240 nonprobability (Prodege and QuestMindShare).
Session 3: N = 897 Qualtrics participants (in IL, KY, MI, OH).
|
After
Session 1: N = 270 SSRS participants (in Indiana-48 perimeter counties and IL, KY, MI, OH). Probability-based sample. We concluded Session 1 with N = 87 after the results first indicated that approximately one-half of the participants made decisions at the top-corner, and our Modification 1 did not affect that result. N = 68 were from a probability-based sample, and N = 19 were from a non-probability-based sample (the N = 19 non-prob sample was a Modification 1 idea to determine whether the top-corner problem was specific to the probability-based sample).
Session 2: N = 575 to 600 SSRS, Ipsos, \sout{Prodege, QuestMindShare} participants (in Indiana-44+48=92 counties).
N = 600 Probability-based sample (SSRS and Ipsos). \sout{N = 240 nonprobability (Prodege and QuestMindShare).}
Session 3: N = 897 Qualtrics participants (in IL, KY, MI, OH).
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Session 1: N = 90
Session 2: N = 200
Session 3: N = 300
|
After
Session 1: N = \sout{90} Approximately 30 per arm.
Session 2: N = 200
Session 3: N = 300
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v01a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”. That document also describes additional objectives that will be achieved using the data generated by the protocol.
All participants see the simple three-sentence description of a hospital-based social and emotional support program for the children. For the control group, that’s all they see. The second group (the e-mail group) sees a fundraising e-mail produced by the hospital that is more emotionally evocative than the three-sentence description. The third group (the video group) sees a one minute 43 second video produced by the hospital describing children who are ill and in hospital.
A pilot study demonstrated that the video raises empathic reaction, and that the e-mail raises both empathic reaction and distress/sadness.
After seeing the messages (control, video, e-mail) the participants make six decisions about splitting an endowment between themselves and the children’s hospital. The decisions vary the endowment ($40, $46) and the amount an organization will give to the hospital ($4, $10, $28, $34). The six-decision part of the protocol is the same as Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund, and Xie (2017).
The specific objectives for Session 2 are:
Test the empathy–altruism hypothesis: empathic reactions evoke altruistic motivation.
Test the distress/sadness–egoistic hypothesis: distress/sadness reactions evoke egoistic (warm-glow) motivation.
Session 1 participants will all see the fundraising email but, before they make their six decisions, will be randomized into three conditions in which the experimental instructions have them check:
Nothing
The amount they will be paid (endowment – how much they give + $5 show-up fee).
The amount they will be paid and how much will be going to the hospital (how much they give + how much the organization is giving in that decision)
The specific objectives for Session 1 are:
Compare the altruism and warm-glow parameters (α and β) of participants assigned to T0, T1, and T2.
Describe the outcomes—altruism and warm-glow parameters (α and β), altruistic and warm-glow motivation holding generosity constant (τ and γ), generosity (g ̅ ; α + β)—of participants in response to a typical direct mail fundraising message (Email). Compare the outcomes to the strong altruism (weak warm-glow) in the experiment by Ottoni-Wilhelm et al. (2017).
Compare the outcomes of Indiana-44 participants to Indiana-48 perimeter country/IL, KY, MI, OH participants.
Sessions 1 and 2 use participants in the SSRS Opinion Panel and the Ipsos panel---both are probability-based panels. Session 2 also uses participants from nonprobability panels maintained by Prodege and QuestMindShare. The overall recruitment for Sessions 1 and 2 is managed by SSRS.
Session 3 uses participants from a nonprobability panel recruited by Qualtrics Research Services (QRS), which can be recruited at lower cost (than SSRS participants), to improve first-session precision in IV analyses via TwoSample-IV. This can be done only if the quality of the QRS participants is adequate. The specific objectives for Session 3 are:
(1) Test whether the quality of the QRS participants is similar to that of the SSRS participants from Sessions 1 and 2.
(2) Test whether the first-sessions (Empathic State; Distress-Negative State) of the QRS participants are similar to that of the SSRS participants from Sessions 1 and 2.
|
After
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v02a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”. That document also describes additional objectives that will be achieved using the data generated by the protocol.
All participants see the simple three-sentence description of a hospital-based social and emotional support program for the children. For the control group, that’s all they see. The second group (the e-mail group) sees a fundraising e-mail produced by the hospital that is more emotionally evocative than the three-sentence description. The third group (the video group) sees a one minute 43 second video produced by the hospital describing children who are ill and in hospital.
A pilot study demonstrated that the video raises empathic reaction, and that the e-mail raises both empathic reaction and distress/sadness.
After seeing the messages (control, video, e-mail) the participants make six decisions about splitting an endowment between themselves and the children’s hospital. The decisions vary the endowment ($40, $46) and the amount an organization will give to the hospital ($4, $10, $28, $34). The six-decision part of the protocol is the same as Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund, and Xie (2017). 2023-08-16: Endowments increased to $52/$63; organization amounts to $4, $15, $28, $39.
The specific objectives for Session 2 are:
Test the empathy–altruism hypothesis: empathic reactions evoke altruistic motivation.
Test the distress/sadness–egoistic hypothesis: distress/sadness reactions evoke egoistic (warm-glow) motivation.
Session 1 participants will all see the fundraising email but, before they make their six decisions, will be randomized into three conditions in which the experimental instructions have them check:
Nothing
The amount they will be paid (endowment – how much they give + $5 show-up fee).
The amount they will be paid and how much will be going to the hospital (how much they give + how much the organization is giving in that decision)
The specific objectives for Session 1 are:
Compare the altruism and warm-glow parameters (α and β) of participants assigned to T0, T1, and T2.
Describe the outcomes—altruism and warm-glow parameters (α and β), altruistic and warm-glow motivation holding generosity constant (τ and γ), generosity (g ̅ ; α + β)—of participants in response to a typical direct mail fundraising message (Email). Compare the outcomes to the strong altruism (weak warm-glow) in the experiment by Ottoni-Wilhelm et al. (2017).
Compare the outcomes of Indiana-44 participants to Indiana-48 perimeter country/IL, KY, MI, OH participants.
Sessions 1 and 2 use participants in the SSRS Opinion Panel and the Ipsos panel---both are probability-based panels. 2023-08-16: \sout{Session 2 also uses participants from nonprobability panels maintained by Prodege and QuestMindShare.} The overall recruitment for Sessions 1 and 2 is managed by SSRS.
Session 3 uses participants from a nonprobability panel recruited by Qualtrics Research Services (QRS), which can be recruited at lower cost (than SSRS participants), to improve first-session precision in IV analyses via TwoSample-IV. This can be done only if the quality of the QRS participants is adequate. The specific objectives for Session 3 are:
(1) Test whether the quality of the QRS participants is similar to that of the SSRS participants from Sessions 1 and 2.
(2) Test whether the first-sessions (Empathic State; Distress-Negative State) of the QRS participants are similar to that of the SSRS participants from Sessions 1 and 2.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v01a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”.
|
After
Complete details are described in the Measurement/Analysis plan: “eac-Pre-reg-002-v02a-Measurement-AnalysisPlan-IndvDecMake01.docx”.
|