The influence of anonymity on joint problem-solving

Last registered on October 03, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The influence of anonymity on joint problem-solving
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010037
Initial registration date
September 08, 2022

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
September 08, 2022, 12:33 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
October 03, 2022, 5:57 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
France
Region
Paris, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur & Hauts-de-France

Primary Investigator

Name
Maren Mickeler
Affiliation
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Diego Zunino
PI Affiliation
SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG)
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Marine Hadengue
PI Affiliation
SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG)
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Tobias Kretschmer
PI Affiliation
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2022-09-12
End date
2022-09-18
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
Anonymity, Problem-solving, Feedback-giving, Learning, Platforms
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Organizations increasingly rely on digital platforms to post predefined challenges or problems, asking for members' submissions. Individuals can contribute directly when they post original ideas and solutions or indirectly when they give feedback to others' submissions. In general, a solution’s overall quality depends on individuals’ direct and indirect contributions. While research so far has primarily focused on the antecedents and outcomes of the former, very little is known about the drivers and consequences of individuals’ indirect contributions. We test whether granting individuals anonymity stimulates their feedback-giving behavior with regard to contributions by others. To do so, we run a field experiment with business school students on a digital platform that allows direct and indirect contributions of peers in the context of a hackathon. Our treatment takes place at the platform level and involves granting individuals anonymity in providing feedback to the solutions of others on the platform. We measure the quantity and valence of the feedback provided by participants, whether they incorporated the feedback received, and the quality of participants' final submissions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mickeler, Maren et al. 2022. "The influence of anonymity on joint problem-solving." AEA RCT Registry. October 03. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10037-1.1
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We run a field experiment on digital platforms that allow direct and indirect contributions among peers during a hackathon. Specifically, participants must engage in a creative process to define and solve a specific problem within the context of higher education. Over the course of five days, participants learn about the problem, are asked to develop solutions and provide feedback to other participants. Our treatment takes place at the platform level and involves granting individuals anonymity in providing feedback to others on the platform. We randomly assign (i) students to teams and (ii) teams to experimental conditions. We set up two versions of a digital platform that match each other in all functions but one, which is the provision of participants’ identity to peers. In the control version of our platform, participants interact with their peers using their full, real names. In the treatment version, participants interact with their peers using anonymous pseudonyms, which are generated by randomly combining an adjective with an animal noun, in a similar fashion to shared documents on collaboration platforms such as Google docs (e.g., “happy zebra” or “colorful dog”).
Intervention Start Date
2022-09-12
Intervention End Date
2022-09-16

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
First, we measure feedback giving as the number of comments each student provides to others on the platform. We measure both the number of comments posted as well as the number of participants’ quick reactions to peers’ contributions. Second, we measure the tone of the feedback given by running sentiment analysis algorithms on comments provided, as well as the number of participants’ negative reactions. Third, we measure whether groups incorporate the feedback received by comparing the initial solutions uploaded on the platform at the beginning of the experiment with the final solutions submitted at the very end.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We measure the quality of solutions posted on the platform.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment is based on a fully randomized between-subjects design. It is scheduled to take place in the context of a hackathon that runs at a major business school in France. Participants are 739 students, who have just joined the school at one of its three sites. Students work in groups of five on the task of developing a creative solution for higher education via a digital platform. Overall, the hackathon runs for five days. Day 1 exposes students to the topic, after which they work on identifying problems and receiving feedback from both coaches and peers on day 2. On day 3 students work on developing solutions and receiving feedback from both coaches and peers, after which they finalize their solution and vote on the best contributions on day 4. Finally, a subset of selected students presents their solutions to a panel of coaches and a jury of experts on day 5.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
We assign participants to our treatment and control groups using a computerized random number generator.
Randomization Unit
We use a two stage randomization where we first assign (i) students to teams and (ii) teams to experimental conditions.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
We plan to have 70 teams in our control and 78 teams in our treatment group.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Overall, we plan to have 739 participants (348 individuals in our control and 391 in our treatment group).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
70 teams (348 individuals) in our control, 78 teams (391 individuals) in our treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
SKEMA Ethical Committee
IRB Approval Date
2022-05-26
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
September 16, 2022, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
No
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
No
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials