AEA RCT Registry

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Poverty and Redistributive Preferences

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0000992

Initial registration date

January 04, 2016

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

January 04, 2016, 12:07 PM EST

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

Christopher Roth

Affiliation

University of Warwick

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2016-01-04

End date

2016-01-05

Keywords

Welfare

Additional Keywords

Redistribution

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Abstract

This document describes the analysis plan for a randomized experiment examining
the psychological effects of poverty on redistributive preferences. We will recruit
respondents from Amazon Mechanical Turk. We will run one experiment in which
we expose our treatment group to a prime that triggers feelings of poverty (Mani
et al., 2013). In the experiment we recruit 500 participants. We examine the effect
of poverty primes on behavior in a behavioral measure of redistributive preferences
as well as explicit questions on redistributive preferences. This plan outlines the
design of the experiments, the outcomes of interest, the econometric approach and
the dimensions of heterogeneity we intend to explore.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Roth, Christopher. 2016. "Poverty and Redistributive Preferences." AEA RCT Registry. January 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.992-1.0

Former Citation

Roth, Christopher. 2016. "Poverty and Redistributive Preferences." AEA RCT Registry. January 04. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/992/history/6474

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

We have adapted the poverty primes by Mani et al. (2013) to the MTurk environment. As in Mani et al. (2013), we present our respondents with hypothetical scenarios, each of which describes a financial problem. We randomly assign our respondents to either a hard or an easy financial scenario.

In the first financial scenario they need to explain how they would deal with an income decrease of 30% (3%) in the hard (easy) financial scenario. We then ask them a variety of questions on whether this income shock would substantially affect their situation and what kind of sacrifices they would need to make. In the second scenario people explain how they would deal with a situation in which they need to come up with an amount of money: In the hard (easy) financial scenario respondents are asked how they would come up with $5000 ($300) in a short notice. The order with which these financial scenarios is presented is randomized. Respondents write down how they might deal with the financial scenarios. The aim of exposure to these scenarios is to trigger feelings of poverty.

We have made two main changes to the primes used by Mani et al. (2013): first, we increased the amounts for the hard financial scenarios. Second, we removed two financial scenarios because they did not seem well-suited for the MTurk population. We have conducted a pilot study with a sample of 350 participants on August 1st in which we document that our two primes successfully affect financial worries. In particular, poorer individuals from our sample are quite strongly affected by our treatment: They display substantially stronger financial worries.

Intervention Start Date

2016-01-04

Intervention End Date

2016-01-05

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

A behavioral measure for redistributive preferences.

A measure of our respondents' willingness to sign up for a petition.

An explicit measure of redistributive preferences.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

We have adapted the poverty primes by Mani et al. (2013) to the MTurk environment. As in Mani et al. (2013), we present our respondents with hypothetical scenarios, each of which describes a financial problem. We randomly assign our respondents to either a hard or an easy financial scenario.

In the first financial scenario they need to explain how they would deal with an income decrease of 30% (3%) in the hard (easy) financial scenario. We then ask them a variety of questions on whether this income shock would substantially affect their situation and what kind of sacrifices they would need to make. In the second scenario people explain how they would deal with a situation in which they need to come up with an amount of money: In the hard (easy) financial scenario respondents are asked how they would come up with $5000 ($300) in a short notice. The order with which these financial scenarios is presented is randomized. Respondents write down how they might deal with the financial scenarios. The aim of exposure to these scenarios is to trigger feelings of poverty.

We have made two main changes to the primes used by Mani et al. (2013): first, we increased the amounts for the hard financial scenarios. Second, we removed two financial scenarios because they did not seem well-suited for the MTurk population. We have conducted a pilot study with a sample of 350 participants on August 1st in which we document that our two primes successfully affect financial worries. In particular, poorer individuals from our sample are quite strongly affected by our treatment: They display substantially stronger financial worries.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done by a computer

Randomization Unit

Individiual.

Was the treatment clustered?

No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

500 individuals

Sample size: planned number of observations

500 individuals

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

250 individuals in treatment
250 individuals in control

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

Minimum detectable effect size is 0.25 of a standard deviation.

Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

Princeton Institutional Review Board

IRB Approval Date

2015-12-21

IRB Approval Number

6800

Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Poverty and Redistributive Preferences

MD5: 6475313b56f2a94238b51b1b3a6a5343

SHA1: 5c44512dba91130ee0ce76f303898369d5940ac9

Uploaded At: January 04, 2016

Poverty and Redistributive Preferences

Pre-Trial

General Information

Locations

Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Registration Citation

Interventions

Primary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes

Experimental Design

Experiment Characteristics

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

Analysis Plan Documents

Post-Trial

Study Withdrawal

Intervention

Data Publication

Program Files

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials