Variations in the two-step norm elicitation procedure: timing, incentives, and scope

The two-step norm elicitation procedure (opinion-matching) is widely used to measure personal normative beliefs and incentivized normative expectations, yet little is known about how sensitive it is to common design variations. This study tests the robustness of the procedure by examining whether personal normative beliefs, normative expectations, and behaviour change when elements of the elicitation procedure are varied. Using an online dictator game with a four-point scale, the baseline treatment asks participants to evaluate the appropriateness of a fair allocation. Two treatments manipulate (i) the timing of elicitation (before vs. after the decision) and (ii) incentives for normative expectations, while (iii) a third treatment varies the scope by asking participants to evaluate two action subsets (fair and low-share allocations). Timing does not significantly affect behaviour, personal normative beliefs, or normative expectations, whereas incentivizing normative expectations improves the accuracy with which participants correctly identify the modal personal normative belief. Evaluating two action subsets does not significantly alter aggregate beliefs and expectations but reveals additional variation in how participants differentiate normative appropriateness across action subsets. Overall, the findings provide evidence of robustness to changes in elicitation timing and scope in environments with clear focal norms, while incentivization improves the accuracy of elicited normative expectations.