In Simple Words
Think of choosing how much allowance to send a family member from a bonus prize. If the family member knows the exact size of the bonus prize, they might expect a larger cut or resent restrictions; if the bonus size is private, the sender can set conditions without facing social pressure or conflict.
Migrants randomized to information settings
- Choices kept private
- Labeling added €102.7
- Choices shared with household
- Labeling added €85.9
- Shared choices with social excuse
- Labeling added €36.35
Labeling increments over each group’s cash-only choice. Differences uncertain, p = 0.127. This does not prove equal effects or a social-excuse benefit.
See source →Research question
Migrants making financial allocations remotely may alter their remitting decisions depending on whether their choice environment and total available resources are transparently disclosed to recipient households. Fearing recipient backlash or damaged trust, senders might withhold or adjust earmarked transfers.
Participants
N = 501 Filipino migrants in Rome randomly allocated into 3 experimental groups (Private Information N = 167, Information Sharing N = 167, Social Excuse N = 167).
Study Design
Randomized controlled trial altering information disclosure to recipient households in the Philippines regarding migrant decision options and windfall amounts.
Results
Varying information asymmetry produced no statistically significant differences in total remittances across information settings (e.g., p = 0.127 for equality of labeling impacts across information conditions).
Takeaway
Deploy targeted remittance commitment options without requiring complex private-information structures or social excuse justifications for senders.
Source and citation
See source →Read alongside the research
Plain-English glossary
Original explanations, informed by the references below. Examples are illustrations, not data from the studies above. The research text stays unchanged.
- Randomized controlled trial
A study that uses chance, like drawing lots, to decide who receives each option being compared. Researchers compare the groups’ outcomes to estimate the effect of those options.
ExampleA lottery assigns volunteers to a training programme or a comparison group. Researchers then compare their outcomes.
GET-IT glossary · Randomized study ↗Read more about randomized controlled trial →- Statistically significant
A label used when a result passes a chosen statistical threshold, often p < 0.05. It does not show how large or useful an effect is. A result that is not statistically significant does not prove there is no effect.
ExampleA study reports p = 0.03 against a 0.05 threshold. It passes that test, but the effect could still be too small to matter.
American Statistical Association · Statement on p-values ↗Read more about statistically significant →