Allies and prosociality in a war: evidence from Ukraine

Last registered on July 26, 2023
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Allies and prosociality in a war: evidence from Ukraine
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009527
Initial registration date
June 01, 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
June 06, 2022, 5:48 AM EDT

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

Last updated
July 26, 2023, 8:53 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Ukraine
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Oana Borcan
Affiliation
University of East Anglia
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Amrish Patel
PI Affiliation
University of East Anglia
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Christa Brunnschweiler
PI Affiliation
University of East Anglia
Contact Investigator
PI Name
David Hugh-Jones
PI Affiliation
University of East Anglia
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Oleksandra Keudel
PI Affiliation
Kyiv School of Economics
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2022-05-18
End date
2024-07-30
Keywords
Behavior, Crime, Violence, & Conflict
Additional Keywords
prosociality, matching donors, identity, conflict
JEL code(s)
C93, D64, D74, H41
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
For a country to survive a conflict, more is needed than just military and financial resources. Amongst other things, individual citizens needs to undertake a variety of behaviours that involve helping others. These may range from helping vulnerable individuals evacuate to picking up groceries for neighbours who cannot leave their home. While it has been found that prosociality typically increases amongst citizens in conflict zones (Voors et al. 2012; Guriev Melnikov 2016; Bauer et al. 2016), an unsurprising lack of data means that there is little causal evidence on the determinants of prosociality in a conflict zone. We conduct an online survey experiment during the 2022-2023 Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine to provide such evidence for one particular determinant of prosociality, the salience of ally support in a conflict.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Borcan, Oana et al. 2023. "Allies and prosociality in a war: evidence from Ukraine." AEA RCT Registry. July 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9527-3.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We conduct an online field experiment operationalised through an online survey with around 1000 Ukrainian urban participants (mostly from Ukraine, some possibly temporarily relocated to other countries) aged 16 to 55, who were registered residents of all regions of Ukraine before the Russian invasion. Participants were randomly assigned to four treatment conditions which varied whether they were assigned a donor, and the identity of the donor. In the survey we observe their prosocial behaviour in the form of real donations to a humanitarian cause, and we also measure their preferences, reported prosocial behaviours through non-incentivised questions; we also collect individual characteristics.

We run a second wave of the online survey one year after the first survey and treatment, with the same participants ( 40% expected response rate). We collect long-term measures of prosociality, we reinforce the initial treatment (by giving the participants a reminder) and the prosocial behaviour measures from the initial survey.
Intervention Start Date
2022-05-18
Intervention End Date
2023-07-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Donations to a specified humanitarian cause.
Recalled donations to any charity during one year preceding the second wave of the survey.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Individuals were given a 70 UAH budget and they could decide how much to keep and how much to donate to a specified humanitarian cause. We will analyse the individual amount donated.
Participants are asked to recall how much they have donated to charity since the first survey.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
i) Reported willingness to volunteer in the next six months.
ii) Reported Trust in people
iii) Reported Optimism
iv) Reported Risk
v) Reported Reciprocity
vi) Reported Time discounting
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
See pre-analysis plan for full details

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In order to identify the causal effect of allies on prosocial choices, we use an online field experiment in which participants play a dictator game and we vary: 1) whether or not the participants are assigned a matching donor that will exactly match the amount donated by the participant. 2) the identity of the matching donor that will exactly match the amount donated by the participant, as shown in the table below:

Control: no matching donor. Participants are not matched with a donor; no information is provided prior to the dictator game
Treatment 1: national matching donor. “A generous Ukrainian donor has promised to donate an extra UAH for each UAH that you donate to the Emergency services in Ukraine.”
Treatment 3: international matching donor. “A generous donor from a Western European country has promised to donate an extra UAH for each UAH that you donate to the Emergency services in Ukraine.”
Treatment 4: unspecified matching donor. “A generous donor has promised to donate an extra UAH for each UAH that you donate to the Emergency services in Ukraine.”

Participants are randomly allocated across treatment arms, with equal probability.
Return participants in the second wave of the survey are reminded of their treatment in the first wave of the survey.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Done by computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
0
Sample size: planned number of observations
1000 in wave 1 expected 400 in wave 2
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
250 in wave 1
60-65 in wave 2
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of East Anglia ECO-SREC
IRB Approval Date
2022-04-06
IRB Approval Number
ETH2122-1553
IRB Name
University of East Anglia ECO-SREC
IRB Approval Date
2023-06-20
IRB Approval Number
ETH2223-2526
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Allies and prosociality in a war: evidence from Ukraine. Pre-analysis Plan

MD5: 39b17b19199ecd8960a321f2461363ee

SHA1: e419bf2096d2a31aa75f874bdf5828ac4406f985

Uploaded At: June 01, 2022

pre-analysis plan_24072023 updated.pdf

MD5: e99ba0f1fd637109496f510f4a1a2185

SHA1: 0f9ada0de7de78bee71cf4fe94a16d601567c4bc

Uploaded At: July 26, 2023