Nonstandard Errors

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty-nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants

Non-Standard Errors

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: Non-standard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for better reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants

Peace in an unequal world

Replication material for "Peace in an unequal world? Experimental evidence on the relationship between inequality and conflict in a guns-vs-butter seeting

How Does the Vaccine Approval Procedure Affect Covid-19 Vaccination Intentions?

Peoples’ willingness to vaccinate is critical to combating the COVID-19 pandemic. We devise a representative experiment to study how the design of the vaccine approval procedure affects public attitudes towards vaccination. Compared to an Emergency Use Authorization, choosing the more thorough Accelerated Authorization approval procedure increases vaccination intentions by 13 percentage points. Effects of increased duration of the approval procedure are positive and significant only for Emergency Use Authorization. Treatment effects are homogenous across population subgroups. Increased trust in the vaccine is the key mediator of treatment effects on vaccination intentions

Beliefs about social norms and (the polarization of) COVID-19 vaccination readiness

Social norms affect a wide range of behaviors in society. We conducted a representative experiment to study how beliefs about the existing social norm regarding COVID-19 vaccination affect vaccination readiness. Beliefs about the norm are on average downward biased, and widely dispersed. Randomly providing information about the existing descriptive norm succeeds in correcting biased beliefs, thereby reducing belief dispersion. The information has no effect on vaccination readiness on average, which is due to opposite effects among women (positive) and men (negative). Fundamental differences in how women and men process the same information are likely the cause for these contrasting information effects. Control-group vaccination intentions are lower among women than men, so the information reduces polarization by gender. Additionally, the information reduces gendered polarization in policy preferences related to COVID-19 vaccination

How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?

Peoples' willingness to vaccinate is critical to combating the COVID-19 pandemic. We devise a representative experiment to study how the design of the vaccine approval procedure affects public attitudes towards vaccination. Compared to an Emergency Use Authorization, choosing the more thorough Accelerated Authorization approval procedure increases vaccination intentions by 13 percentage points. Effects of increased duration of the approval procedure are positive and significant only for Emergency Use Authorization. Treatment effects are homogenous across population subgroups. Increased trust in the vaccine is the key mediator of treatment effects on vaccination intentions

Beliefs about Social Norms and (the Polarization of) Covid-19 Vaccination Readiness

Social norms affect a wide range of behaviors in society. We conducted a representative experiment to study how beliefs about the existing social norm regarding COVID-19 vaccination affect vaccination readiness. Beliefs about the norm are on average downward biased, and widely dispersed. Randomly providing information about the existing descriptive norm succeeds in correcting biased beliefs, thereby reducing belief dispersion. The information has no effect on vaccination readiness on average, which is due to opposite effects among women (positive) and men (negative). Fundamental differences in how women and men process the same information are likely the cause for these contrasting information effects. Control-group vaccination intentions are lower among women than men, so the information reduces polarization by gender. Additionally, the information reduces gendered polarization in policy preferences related to COVID-19 vaccination

Discrimination in the General Population

We present representative evidence of discrimination against migrants through an incentivized choice experiment with over 2,000 participants. Decision makers allocate a fixed endowment between two receivers. To measure discrimination, we randomly vary receivers' migration background and other attributes, including education, gender, and age. We find that discrimination against migrants by the general population is both widespread and substantial. Our causal moderation analysis shows that migrants with higher education and female migrants experience significantly less discrimination. Discrimination is more pronounced among decision makers who are male, non-migrants, have right-wing political preferences, and live in regions with lower migrant shares

Discrimination in the general population

We present representative evidence of discrimination against migrants through an incentivized choice experiment with over 2,000 participants. Decision makers allocate a fixed endowment between two receivers. To measure discrimination, we randomly vary receivers' migration background and other attributes, including education, gender, and age. We find that discrimination against migrants by the general population is both widespread and substantial. Our causal moderation analysis shows that migrants with higher education and female migrants experience significantly less discrimination. Discrimination is more pronounced among decision makers who are male, non-migrants, have right-wing political preferences, and live in regions with lower migrant shares