# _C ONSTRAINTS_

The two key challenges associated with this tool are statistical and logistical. Statistically, while indirect questioning techniques reduce bias, they also elicit less information and result in inefficient estimates. This can be partially remedied by combining measurement experiments, e.g. using different survey experiment methods to produce more precise estimates. Logistically, these experiments can be difficult to administer, requiring efforts on the part of the respondent to consider a wide set of factors at once and thus leaving room for misunderstandings and resulting errors in capturing accurate responses. Moreover, simply because they are participating in a survey, even with indirect questions respondents may still perceive sensitive issues to be open to breaches of confidentiality, leading to potential desirability bias.

# _B EHAVIORAL G AMES_

Behavioral lab or field games are an emerging tool used to complement surveys in understanding interpersonal and intercommunity relationships. Drawing from the field of behavioral economics, voluntary games are a tool used to measure and compare the preferences of the players, particularly their willingness to cooperate with one another. The choices that participants make in a game setting in terms of prosocial behaviors such as trust, cooperation, willingness to sacrifice for the public good are presumed to reflect choices that they would be willing to make in the real-world situations.

# _A DVANTAGES_

Given their nature, behavioral games can be useful in validating perception and observational data and can be specifically useful in understanding the impact of social cohesion interventions on willingness to engage in collective action (bonding) and attitude towards outgroups (bridging). For example, Alan et al. (2021) used this method to investigate the impact of a perspective taking curriculum on the incidence of violence and interethnic friendships in elementary schools in Türkiye, where one in five students was a refugee. Implemented over a one-year period and involving three-hour weekly lectures, activities, and videos, they tracked changes in behaviors using field games testing trust, reciprocity, cooperation, and altruism among participants of the study. Similarly, Avdeenko and Gilligan (2015) investigated the impact of a community development fund in four states in South Sudan using lab games to measure prosocial behaviors. Importantly, both projects also collected perception and observational data to assess against the results of these field games, to help build robust conclusions. For instance, the study in South Sudan showed no impacts on prosocial behaviors through games but showed an improvement in perceptions of civic participation among participants, allowing the authors to distinguish between the impact on individual norms versus institutions.

# _C ONSTRAINTS_

Behavioral games need to be assessed for their limitations in reflecting real world conditions, and extrapolations from games to real world behaviors need to be done carefully and calibrated within local context, including perception and observational data. While games can be iterated and localized, they remain bounded in time and in a simplified context, in a way that does not symmetrically mirror real life considerations. Moreover, in any replication of real-life contexts, timing, location, and setting dynamics need to be carefully considered – for instance deciding when to play games in the context of when the intervention is introduced or where the games are played within a community and how that may affect results of the exercise.

20 | P a g e