CLOSER to Evidence: Abstracts

Renzo Carriero (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto), Dotti Sani, G. (University of Milan); Molteni, F. (University of Milan); Ladini, R. (University of Milan)

The custom of transmitting only the paternal surname to children remains widespread in most patrilineal societies. Given how societal emphasis on gender equality has increased in other societal domains in recent decades (e.g. employment, wages, domestic chores), the question of why parents refrain from adopting more egalitarian surname practices (such as double surnames) presents a compelling sociological puzzle. This article aims to address this issue by analysing to what extent social norms shape the propensity to give children both parents’ surnames (i.e., a double surname) in Italy, where, since a 2022 ruling by the Constitutional Court, children are allowed to take a double surname unless the parents agree otherwise. We investigate the role of norms using three survey experiments, with Italian online quota samples. In the first two experiments, respondents were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical scenarios designed to manipulate empirical and normative expectations about their reference network’s surnaming practices. In third experiment, respondents faced a fictitious choice scenario where alternatives to the double surname choice were manipulated to include either a normative (i.e. paternal) or counter-normative (i.e. maternal) option. Results from the first experiment indicate that empirical expectations had a stronger influence than normative ones. The second experiment confirmed this but showed that the effect depends on the reference network considered. Results from the third experiment reveal that the double surname is strongly preferred when the alternative is counter-normative, i.e. the maternal surname. These findings highlight the importance of changing empirical expectations to encourage the adoption of the double surname, ultimately promoting greater gender equality in family naming practices.

Pregnancy, Birth and Fathers: An Experiment with Health Workers

Maddalena Cannito (University of Turin), Ferrero Camoletto, R. (University of Turin), Fidolini V. (University of Lorraine), Tomatis F. (University of Bergamo)

Despite recent changes in fatherhood and the positive health and social outcomes of fathers’ involvement in pregnancy and childbirth, expectant men often lack specific attention by health workers, compared to that devoted to mothers. The objective of the “PREBIRTH” project is to understand doctors’, obstetricians’ and nurses’ attitudes towards fathers’ involvement during prenatal paths offered in public hospitals. Adopting a survey-based experimental design based on the use of vignettes, the research is expected to produce a more accurate knowledge about health workers’ gender attitudes and assumptions about parenthood and pregnancy in Countries representative of different welfare models and (gendered) service cultures. The final goal of the project is to reflect upon the elements that could facilitate or hinder men’s early participation in parenthood and eventually to propose some possible interventions.

Kinship Obligations in Nuclear and Extended Family Networks: A Vignette Study

Maria Francesca Morabito (University of Florence), Tosi, M. (University of Padua); Morabito, M.F. (University of Florence); Tocchioni, V. (University of Florence)

This study examines kinship obligations across nuclear and extended family ties, considering variations by support type, gender, and relational factors, such as emotional closeness, past conflict, reciprocity, and societal judgment. Existing research is predominantly concentrated on support exchanges and obligations between partners and their adult children. Therefore, it remains unknown to what extent kinship obligations extend beyond the nuclear family. Using data from an Italian ad-hoc online survey, we assess kinship obligations in Italian family networks using a vignette-based factorial experiment, randomly assigning kin types and genders to assess causal effects. The dependent variables measure to what extent the protagonist of the vignette should provide emotional, practical, care and financial support to a relative in need. Findings indicate that perceived obligations to provide support to nephews/nieces, uncles/aunts, and cousins are weaker and surrounded by less consensus than those associated with supporting parents and children, with siblings’ obligations occupying an intermediate position. Differences in supportive obligations between extended and nuclear kin ties are larger with regard to financial support and care than to emotional and practical aids. Extended kinship obligations are more conditional on societal judgment for not providing help, while those guiding parent-child ties are more dependent on emotional closeness and past conflict.

Beyond Paternalism and Prejudice: Unpacking Everyday Ableism Through Experimental Vignettes

Federica Festa (University of Turin), Rosa Bellacicco (University of Turin), Parisi, T. (University of Turin); Romanò S. (University of Turin)

Ableism refers to the process of discriminating against people with disabilities (Bogart & Dunn, 2019) and permeates all layers of society and culture (Wolbring, 2014). The term originated within the disability rights movement (Wolbring, 2012) and is rooted in the “social model” of disability, which argues that disability is not an inherent condition but rather the result of an environment that disables individuals with certain bodies and minds (Olkin & Pledge, 2003).
Ableism encompasses beliefs and practices that take the able-bodied norm as the standard — often perceived as “normal,” perfect, and “fully human” — against which disability is viewed as a diminished or lesser state of being (Campbell, 2009). At its core, ableism reflects a hierarchy of human worth based on ability, expectations of ability, or attributions of ability. This logic sustains the idea that disability is undesirable and that people with disabilities should be excluded or marginalized (Goodley et al., 2019; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009).
Ableism is also recognized as a complex set of beliefs, emotions, and behaviors that go beyond overtly negative expressions (Glick & Fiske, 2001). In addition to hostile forms (e.g., insults, avoidance, aggression), disability prejudice can also manifest through paternalism, overprotectiveness, or infantilization.
A number of international studies (Branco et al., 2019; Broderick & Lalvani, 2017; Dirth & Branscombe, 2019; Friedman, 2019) have explored how ableism reinforces multiple forms of oppression and inequality. However, there is still limited empirical research examining how ableism manifests in the general population — especially in Italy.
This study aims to investigate how the tendency to justify ableist behavior varies depending on the type of disability — intellectual or physical — as well as the gender of the disabled person, the presence of a medicalized context, and perceived competition over resources. To this end, we designed a between-subjects factorial survey using four different vignettes that explore various forms of ableist conduct (i.e., desexualizing, infantilizing, excluding, and devaluing). The survey was administered to a statistically representative sample of the Italian population, stratified by gender, age, and geographical area (N=2000). Preliminary results indicate that: a medical context tends to justify ableism; competition over resources is associated with ableist behavior; and gender and type of disability – intellectual or physical - do not seem to matter. However, students with Specific Learning Disabilities appear to be subjected to a strong negative effect.

Learning about Poverty and Preferences for Redistribution: Results from a Survey Experiment in Italy

Nevena Kulić (University of Pavia), Griaznova, O. (University of Pavia); Bellani, D. (Catholic University of Milan); Scervini, F. (University of Pavia).

Preferences for redistribution have attracted the attention of researchers across different social science disciplines for decades. Classical political economy assumption is that self-interest plays an important role for preferences suggesting that individuals with lower income position have stronger support for redistribution., However, the causal relationship between self-interest and preferences for redistribution remains less clear. This paper reports evidence from a randomised survey experiment conducted in Italy in 2024 that examines whether providing individuals with objective information about their poverty status, as distance of their household income from the poverty line, influences their preferences for redistribution. Building on rational learning theory, we hypothesized that individuals who learned that their income was closer to poverty line than they believed would express stronger support for redistribution compared to those who didn’t receive this information. Our results show that this corrective feedback affects preferences in a nuanced way: support for progressive taxation is more sensitive to information, while preferences regarding general views on inequality and government anti-poverty measures are largely unaffected. This research provides important insights into the mechanisms by which economic self-awareness and self-interest shapes policy attitudes, contributing to broader debates on inequality and redistribution.

Wigglers and the Willing: A Within-Subject Analysis of Inequality Concerns

Francesco Bogliacino (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart), Blanco, M. (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto); Ortoleva, P. (Princeton University); Nunnari, S. (Bocconi University)

Subjects make pro-social choices. Normative beliefs play a role in governing those choices. Subjects often adhere to these beliefs—as with moral norms—unconditionally, regardless of other people’s beliefs or choices, displaying deontological behavior. More often, however, they exhibit a conditional preference to conform, aiming to maintain a favorable social image. For example, they may modify their behavior in response to an audience, seek excuses, offer overjustifications, or willfully ignore consequences. Yet, we lack a systematic quantification of these behaviors.

We introduce a novel experimental design that quantifies, in dollar terms, how much altruism changes in response to moral wiggle room and how closely behavior aligns with deontological principles. We conduct online experiments in the U.S. and lab experiments in Colombia.

Our main findings are the following. First, the degree of moral wiggle room is smaller than expected. Second, a considerable portion of subjects exhibit behavior that remains unchanged in response to incurring personal costs. Third, our design provides a novel, model-free, individual-level classification of behavioral types, with approximately two-thirds of subjects falling into four distinct categories.

Are Bad Institutions Always Bad for Society? Trust and Cooperation in Times of Crisis

Pierluigi Conzo (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto), Daniele, G. (University of Milan); Martinangeli, A. (Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas University); Sas, W. (Hasselt University)

This paper investigates how institutional and social trust respond to crisis situations, and to what extent different kinds of trust interact in such a context. In an online survey experiment on 4,400 representative respondents from Italy, participants are exposed to a real-world flooding scenario and randomly assigned to information treatments portraying institutions as effective, ineffective, or neither of the two. When institutions are framed as effective, institutional trust and donations to a grassroots environmental NGO increase, while social trust and cooperation norms remain stable. When institutions are seen as unprepared, participants do not compensate by trusting others or stressing cooperation. Instead, they increase support for the NGO as well, suggesting crisis management delegation to motivated and organised citizens. When no information is provided about institutional quality all trust indicators rise, albeit more noisily. These findings suggest delegation as a distinct response to institutional failure and point to the need to study trust in civic movements as an intermediate form between institutional and interpersonal trust.

Who Is to Blame (or Praise)? Perceived Service Quality and Responsibility in Multilevel Government

Roberto Zotti (University of Turin), Capezzone, T. (University of Turin and Collegio Carlo Alberto); Conzo, P. (University of Turin and Collegio Carlo Alberto); Sas, W. (Hasselt University); Vorobyev, D. (European Research University)

One of the advantages of multi-level government is that it can bring policies closer to voters, thus improving accountability. In this paper we ask whether such a layered and complex system can also erode transparency, undercutting accountability instead. We conduct a survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 5,000 Italian citizens to investigate how responsibility for public services as well as their quality is perceived. We find that when respondents are asked which level of government is responsible for certain important services — local, regional, or central — incorrect answers abound. A subset of respondents is then provided with correct information about which level of government is actually responsible. We find that when this feedback shifts perceived responsibility toward a level of government that is politically aligned with the respondent, service quality assessments become more favorable. Providing feedback to respondents who answered correctly also boosts reported service quality, especially for the non-aligned, suggesting a confirmation effect. These findings highlight the importance of information provision and the politically motivated quality assessment that may be present without it.

Social Trust and Cooperation: The Power of Narratives

Willem Sas (Hasselt University & University of Stirling), Capezzone, T. (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto); Conzo, P. (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto); Zotti, R. (University of Turin)

A small yet growing (experimental) literature is researching the degree to which providing citizens with correct information about institutions -- and the gradual improvements they bring about -- can bridge the gap between misinformed distrust and evidence-based trust, with positive results. What remains under-researched, is the extent to which underlying negativity and confirmation biases or politically activated polarisation can be disarmed by more general information on positive societal developments. This project investigates whether providing respondents with positive trends in general, or specifically linked to societal cooperation, can boost other forms of non-institutional social attitudes alongside institutional trust, such as social trust and cooperative norms, as such forming a stepping stone towards societal resilience and a shield against polarisation.

Social Cohesion and Preventive Care: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Marina Di Giacomo (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto), Mantovani, M. (University of Milano Bicocca); Poggi, A. (University of Turin)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Early detection of CVD risk factors through preventive screening programs can substantially reduce adverse outcomes, yet participation rates in such programs remain suboptimal. In this paper, we examine whether perceived social cohesion between the sender and the recipient of an invitation to a free cardiovascular health check affects health beliefs and participation intentions. Using a survey experiment on a representative sample of over 2,500 individuals aged 40–74 in England—the target group for the NHS Health Check program—we randomly assign participants to receive an invitation message from a peer who either shares or does not share their social norms. We measure the impact of perceived social cohesion on health beliefs, including perceived susceptibility, severity and benefits as predicted by the Health Belief Model. The manipulation successfully altered perceptions of social cohesion, and estimated effects are directionally consistent with the hypothesis that cohesive peer messages enhance message effectiveness.

In-work Poverty: Attribution of Responsibilities and Support for Policies in Italy

Silvia Pasqua (University of Turin), Colombarolli ,C. (University of Turin); Filandri, M. (University of Turin); Tucci, V. (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

In-work poverty has become a pressing social issue in Italy and across Europe, challenging the assumption that employment alone guarantees economic security. This paper investigates how citizens attribute responsibility for in-work poverty (IWP) and how these perceptions shape support for policy interventions. Drawing on a large-scale factorial survey experiment with 4,000 respondents representative of the Italian voting-age population, we examine (1) the extent to which individual and household characteristics of the working poor influence the attribution of responsibility for IWP, (2) how these characteristics affect support for specific policies, and (3) whether the attribution of responsibility mediates policy preferences. Respondents were randomly exposed to vignettes varying across gender, age, education and occupation, household structure, and region of residence, and asked to evaluate responsibility (individual, employer, government, misfortune) and to allocate support among policy options (minimum wage, income support, limit to use of temporary contracts, training, employer tax reductions). Results show that the attribution of responsibility is systematically shaped by both vignette characteristics and respondents’ own socio-demographic profiles. For example, highly educated workers in low-skilled jobs are more often seen as victims of misfortune, while single parents with children elicit stronger government responsibility. Political orientation and personal experience with poverty or unemployment also significantly affect responsibility attribution. Policy preferences mirror these patterns: minimum wage and contract regulation are widely supported, but income support gains traction particularly when family need is salient. Overall, the findings highlight the central role of deservingness criteria—need, effort, control, reciprocity, and identity—in shaping public attitudes toward in-work poverty and related policies. The study contributes to understanding the social legitimacy of anti-poverty measures in contexts where employment no longer shields against poverty.

The Color of Knowledge: Impacts of Tutor Race on Learning and Performance

Vojtěch Bartoš (University of Milan), Glogowsky, U. (Johannes Kepler University Linz); Rincke, J. (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg)

We demonstrate that racial biases against tutors hinder learning. In e-learning experiments, U.S. conservatives are more likely to disregard advice from Black tutors, resulting in reduced performance compared to learners taught by white tutors. We show that the bias is unconscious and, consequently, does not skew tutor selection. In line with our theory, the bias disappears when the stakes are high. In contrast, liberals favor Black tutors without experiencing learning disparities. Methodologically, we contribute by using video post-production techniques to manipulate tutor race without introducing typical confounds. Additionally, we develop a novel two-stage design that simultaneously measures tutor selection, learning, and productivity.

Disaffection at Work: Employees’ Reaction to Job-related Information

Vincenzo Mollisi (University of Palermo), Braut, B. (University of Genova); Macaluso, M. (University of Turin)

Quiet quitting reflects a growing form of worker disaffection that operates along the intensive margin of labor supply rather than through job exit. We study how alternative workplace narratives shape workers’ moral evaluations and effort-related responses using a randomized survey experiment on a representative sample of employees in Italy and France. We experimentally expose respondents to empirically grounded moral framings emphasizing either social justice and collective rights or work organization and employment practices, and compare them to a neutral control condition. Outcomes capture within-job disengagement, effort provision, voice, and quitting intentions. Justice-oriented narratives significantly reshape moral interpretations of the employment relationship, increasing support for collective voice while reducing passive disengagement commonly associated with quiet quitting, especially among workers with stronger job protection. By contrast, work-centered narratives do not generate systematic effects, and we find no evidence of immediate impacts on quitting intentions.

Intrinsic Disutility of Punishment: A Survey Experiment

Stefania Ottone (University of Turin), Lewisch, P. (University of Vienna); Ponzano, F. (University of Eastern Piedmont)

The social sciences, and economics in particular, have emphasized for a long time the crucial role of third-party punishment since it has been defined as the Golden Keystone of Human Cooperation and Social Stability (Lewisch, 2020 for a brief survey). Usually, interdisciplinary studies underline the private cost of punishment (Galle and Mungan 2021) as well as both its social and private benefits (Levy, 2022). The category of benefits covers all non-instrumental motivations, ranging from considerations of just desert and justice to the “sweet taste of revenge”. However, little evidence is provided on the existence and impact of the “inverse category”, namely a possible negative non-instrumental utility that people may experience when punishing another person. The basic idea of this “intrinsic disutility of punishment” has been formulated by Nobel prize laureate James Buchanan (Buchanan 1975), describing a second category of punishment costs that goes beyond the ‘regular’ resource components (for investigations, proceedings, etc.) required for penal enforcement. This second category captures the negative emotions by the punisher associated with the deliberate infliction of a bad onto someone else. ‘Intrinsic disutility’ accounts for the straightforward fact that people normally do not like to harm another being.
Our research question is: in a third-party (altruistic) punishment scenario, which factor (the intrinsic utility or the intrinsic disutility) will dominate under what conditions? In our study, we want to detect whether personal traits (like prosociality and empathy), experiences, social context and the severity of a crime (assault vs theft) may influence the relative weight of intrinsic disutility of third-party punishment.

The Shape of Moral Satisfaction

Bianca Sanesi (IMT Lucca), Del Mastio, G. (IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca)

Some individuals behave prosocially across repeated decisions, while others reduce prosociality after a good deed. We argue that these patterns reflect the curvature of moral satisfaction, the hedonic utility from acting in line with one’s moral values. In our model, increasing marginal moral satisfaction generates moral consistency, whereas diminishing marginal moral satisfaction generates moral licensing. We test this mechanism in an online two-stage experiment that holds material incentives constant while varying moral framing. We combine behavioral choices with linguistic measures of moral engagement to recover individual heterogeneity in the shape of moral satisfaction. We find substantial variation: participants with higher moral engagement exhibit diminishing marginal moral satisfaction, while less engaged participants display increasing marginal moral satisfaction. Our framework characterizes both the structure and heterogeneity of moral satisfaction and helps clarify when good deeds crowd in versus crowd out subsequent prosocial behavior.

Arbitrary cooperation

Charles Efferson (HEC Lausanne)

Repeated interactions enjoy favorable status as an explanation for the evolution of human cooperation. So favorable, in fact, that one influential hypothesis paradoxically relies on repeated interactions to explain human cooperation in anonymous one-shot games. Some studies, however, suggest that repeated interactions in isolation, given a suitably flexible strategy space, do not reliably support cooperation. If generally true, this finding would contradict the status of repeated play as a basis for the evolution of both repeated and one-shot cooperation. Using a mix of analytical results and a large number of simulations, I consider this question with a social dilemma involving a continuous action space. Continuous action spaces are important for at least two reasons. First, they arguably capture the social dilemmas people play in their daily lives better than games in which players can only choose to cooperate fully or defect fully. Second, they allow us to study the effects of extending the strategy space without positing super-human players who can remember long histories of past play. Under repeated play of such a game, I examine eight strategy spaces and seven approaches to implementation errors in all combinations. Results show an overall pattern of limited cooperation. In particular, given a combination of strategy space and implementation error that supports the evolution of cooperative strategies, some suitable generalization of the strategy space typically destabilizes cooperation. Although these results do not constitute a general proof, they are consistent with the notion that repeated interactions, as a stand-alone mechanism, only tend to support the evolution of cooperation given arbitrary, biologically groundless restrictions on the set of strategies that can arise via mutation or cultural innovation.

Fairness Covers and Ethnic Discrimination

Elena Cettolin (Tilburg University), Cappelen, A. (NHH Bergen), Evirgen, F.S. (WZB Berlin), Suetens S. (Tilburg University) and Tungodden, B. (NHH Bergen)

We investigate the opportunistic use of fairness ideals in redistribution decisions among members of different ethnic groups. We conduct experiments with large samples of the German and French majority population, where respondents are given the option to redistribute earnings between two workers, one of whom belongs to an ethnic minority group. We implement treatments where all fairness ideals prescribe the same allocation, and ethnic preferences can therefore be easily inferred from redistribution choices, and compare them to treatments where different fairness ideals prescribe different allocations. This multiplicity of rationalizable allocations provides a fairness cover for expressing ethnic preferences through redistribution. We find that individuals with a minority background are, on average, discriminated against, but the presence of such covers does not increase the extent of discrimination in redistribution.

Beliefs, Delegation and Backlash

Marina Della Giusta (University of Turin & Collegio Carlo Alberto), Bosworth. S. (University of Reading); Dubois, F. (University of Turin)

Artificial Intelligence and Institutional Trust: Promise or Peril?

Ginevra Prelle (University of Milan)

The public sector is increasingly adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public welfare policies but current knowledge on possible social consequences is extremely limited. This study focuses on trust in institutions as a specific possible consequence. Existing empirical research adopts the procedural fairness theory, but it ignores a societal element that we argue is essential for understanding AI and trust: experiences with institutions. We explore this factor as driving not only people’s trust in algorithmic decision making but their overall trust in a welfare system implementing AI to profile citizens. In a vignette experiment combined with survey measures people in Italy were asked about their experience with institutions. Then, they were randomly assigned to three different scenarios revealing the performance of a public institution and whether the decision was made by a human, a hybrid system, or an AI. Finally, participants provided their level of institutional trust. Our core argument is that, differently to what existing research assume, the effect of AI revelation should depend upon people’s prior experiences with institutions. Results suggest that performance and experience remain more important drivers of trust in institutions than the kind of decision-maker. At the same time, the findings highlight context-dependent dynamics, especially in how trust varies between welfare-related bureaucratic decisions and justice-related decisions.

Page updated

Report abuse