On the Detrimental Impact of Non-Events on the Efficiency of Risk Communication

Last registered on February 02, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
On the Detrimental Impact of Non-Events on the Efficiency of Risk Communication
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009213
Initial registration date
April 14, 2022

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 14, 2022, 12:22 PM EDT

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

Last updated
February 02, 2024, 5:22 AM EST

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

Locations

Country
Austria
Region
Vienna
Country
Germany
Region
Hamburg

Primary Investigator

Name
Mey-Ling Sommer
Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Jan Philipp Krügel
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Stefan Traub
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Fabian Paetzel
PI Affiliation
TU Clausthal
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Pauline Halm
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Thomas Jacobsen
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Yvonne Nestoriuc
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University, University Medical School Hamburg-Eppendorf
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Jörg Felfe
PI Affiliation
Helmut Schmidt University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2022-04-20
End date
2022-09-30
Keywords
Behavior, Lab
Additional Keywords
Non-Events, Uncertainty, Risk Communication, Credibility, Efficiency, Decision-making
JEL code(s)
I12, D81, D83, C92
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Health agencies are responsible for informing the public about (potential) disease outbreaks. If many individuals follow the recommendations of an agency and take preventive measures in case a health risk is identified, the number of actual cases of harm may be low, even if the estimated health risk was high. The literature suggests that individuals who have experienced such a ``non-event'' may question, in hindsight, whether the risk was really as high as communicated and whether (costly) preventive measures were reasonable. Using an online-experiment, we investigate whether the experience of non-events causes participants to perceive a communicating agency as less reliable and to take more risks the next time a risk is communicated, resulting in a less efficient outcome for society. In a repeated task, participants receive information each period about whether their group is in a low- or high-risk scenario from a communication source, and then must decide whether to choose a safe option or invest in a lottery. A non-event occurs if a high-risk scenario was communicated but the actual number of participants who lost the lottery is low. We find that non-events decrease group efficiency in particular if an uninvolved bystander questions the communicated information after a non-event has occurred. Aside from this, communication generally leads to higher efficiency than no communication.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Felfe, Jörg et al. 2024. "On the Detrimental Impact of Non-Events on the Efficiency of Risk Communication." AEA RCT Registry. February 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9213-2.1
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We vary the source of communication. In the baseline treatment (T1), risk communication will be announced directly through the computer.
In the first treatment variation (T2), the received information will be announced with uncertainty. In the second treatment variation (T3), an additional person will assume the role of the communicator. The third treatment variation is identical to T3, however, the communicator will have an incentive to announce wrong information to the participants.
Intervention Start Date
2022-04-26
Intervention End Date
2022-08-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Trust in the information/source (dummy);
Risk-Taking depending on to the communicated information (dummy) and the experienced non-events in the previous round(s)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants are randomly assigned to groups of 5 players to play a lottery. Each player will also be assigned a color (blue or orange) which will affect the outcome of the lottery: If a player has been assigned the color blue, (s)he will win the lottery if (s)he decides to play. If a player has been assigned the color orange, s(he) will lose the lottery. The players have also the option to refuse to play the lottery, and save their potential payoff. Before the players decide to play or not play the lottery, the communicator provides information regarding the state of the world (either low or high probability of risk). Participants make individual decisions in the lottery. After the lottery, the players receive the information regarding their own outcome in the lottery and, in addtion, they can see how many players in their group have lost the lottery. The game will be repeated over 10 rounds.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Potential participants show their preferences to participate in scheduled sessions and are than randomly assigned to these sessions.
Group, color assignment and color association (blue-orange vs. orange blue) randomization are done by a computer.
Randomization Unit
Group assignment is randomized at the individual level; position of buttons in the lottery is randomized at the experimental session-level; color assignment is randomized at the group-level; color association (blue-orange vs. orange-blue) is balanced and randomized at the group-level.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Clustered at group-level: 40-50 clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
250-300 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
T1 = 50; T2 = 90; T3 = 90; T4 = 90
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Gesellschaft für experimentelle Wirtschaftsforschung e.V.
IRB Approval Date
2022-04-12
IRB Approval Number
LAgogH4F
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