Small wins: How framing institutional victories affects political action

Last registered on August 18, 2022

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Small wins: How framing institutional victories affects political action

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0009892

Initial registration date

August 10, 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

August 18, 2022, 2:35 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

James Walsh

Affiliation

Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Lucy Page

PI Affiliation

Department of Economics, MIT

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Hannah Ruebeck

PI Affiliation

Department of Economics, MIT

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2022-08-10

End date

2022-08-26

Keywords

Behavior, Electoral, Environment & Energy

Additional Keywords

Climate

JEL code(s)

Q54, Q58, D72, D91

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

This study examines the impact of learning about the climate legislation expected to be introduced in August 2022. It compares two frames. The first frame -- the victory frame -- presents the climate legislation as a historic accomplishment that is a game changer. The second frame -- the incrementalist frame -- presents the legislation as an important step in an unfinished journey. We have two primary outcomes. The first is the decision to engage in voter mobilization efforts to support climate-friendly candidates in the mid-term elections. The second is willingness to donate a share of potential lottery winnings to climate friendly groups. We also measure a number of secondary outcomes, including efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward climate action.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Page, Lucy, Hannah Ruebeck and James Walsh. 2022. "Small wins: How framing institutional victories affects political action." AEA RCT Registry. August 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9892-1.0

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)

The intervention will be information about the Inflation Reduction Act, currently going through Congress, that varies in whether it frames the bill just as a monumental victory or as a step towards a larger goal, requiring more action.

Intervention Start Date

2022-08-10

Intervention End Date

2022-08-26

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

We have two primary outcomes:

(1) Citizen action: Whether participants volunteer with the Environmental Voter Project, an organization that works to increase turn-out among pro-environmental voters by organizing phone-banking events. We will observe whether participants say they are interested in volunteering with EVP and then whether they click on links to EVP's sign-up pages.

(2) Willingness to pay: The amount participants offer to donate from their potential lottery winnings (total $40) to an environmental non-profit. We provide opportunities to donate to either the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Sunrise Movement, or the Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Participants' beliefs with respect to the responsiveness to government policy to citizens' preferences on climate action.
Participants' degree of concern with respect to climate change.

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Government responsiveness:

We will first measure participants' beliefs about government responsiveness via degree of agreement with three statements:
-In the US, the people have the final say about climate policy, no matter who is in office.
-Federal officials are not interested in hearing what people think about climate change, and there is no way to make them listen.
-People like me don’t have any say about what the federal government does about climate change.
We will combine Likert-scale answers into an index of general political efficacy on climate change, following e.g. Anderson (2008).

Next, we will ask participants the probability that Congress would pass a climate bill in January 2023, assuming Democrats maintained control of the House and Senate. We will ask participants for the probability the bill would pass if 5% of Americans called supporting it or if 20% of Americans called supporting it. For each participant, we will then define the gap in these probabilities as a measure of responsiveness to citizens, as well as using the level of the probability of passing with 5% calls as a measure of overall optimism about climate policy.

----------------------------------

Degree of concern about climate change:

Likert-scale answers to the following questions:
-How worried are you about climate change?
-To what extent do you agree or disagree that humans are going to successfully stop climate change?
We will combine these answers into a scale via e.g. Anderson (2008).

Experimental Design

Participants will be randomly allocated to get information about the Inflation Reduction Bill or not. Within those who are informed about the bill, one third will learn about the bill in a framing that just emphasizes how monumental it is (victory frame), one third will learn about the bill in a framing that emphasizes that it's a step towards a larger goal (incrementalist framing), and one third will see a framing that combines the text of the incrementalist framing and the numbers/graphics of the victory frame.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization will be implemented within Qualtrics.

Randomization Unit

Individual

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

4,000 survey participants

Sample size: planned number of observations

4,000 survey participants

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

Control: 1,000 survey participants
Victory frame: 1,000 survey participants
Incrementalist: 1,000 survey participants
Incrementalist with victory numbers: 1,000 survey participants

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB