History-dependent fairness preferences - study 2

Last registered on November 03, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
History-dependent fairness preferences - study 2
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010180
Initial registration date
October 06, 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
October 17, 2022, 3:55 PM EDT

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

Last updated
November 03, 2022, 12:13 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Norway
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Kjetil Madland
Affiliation
NHH
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2022-10-10
End date
2022-10-31
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
fairness preferences, path-dependence, history, dependence, spectator, distribution
JEL code(s)
D91 Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
This RCT builds on a previously registered RCT, ID: AEARCTR-0008997, which studies path-dependence in fairness decisions. The aim of the current experiment is to disentangle possible mechanisms underlying the effect observed in the previous experiment. In this experiment, there is no cost of redistribution. Instead, the is one luck group and one merit group. Spectators in the luck group make ten distributive decisions for pairs of workers, where the source of inequality is luck. The merit group is the same, except that the inequalities are due to differences in performance. In the final 11th decision, spectators in both groups face the same decision, which follows the pattern of the merit group. If I observe the same effect in this experiment as in the previous one, I can conclude that the effect is caused by a shift in what the spectator views as the fair outcome. If the effect is much smaller than in the previous experiment, the previously observed effect was most likely caused by a shift in the relative importance of fairness and efficiency.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Madland, Kjetil. 2022. "History-dependent fairness preferences - study 2." AEA RCT Registry. November 03. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10180-1.2
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
I conduct an incentivized online experiment. I recruit workers from MTurk to answer a Qualtrics survey, which includes a set of slider tasks. I then recruit impartial spectators from Prolific. These spectators decide how bonus earnings should be divided between the workers. The experiment is probabilistically incentivized. Ten per cent of the spectators are drawn to have one of their decisions implemented to decide the payment for a pair of workers.
Intervention Start Date
2022-10-10
Intervention End Date
2022-10-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The outcome variable is the share of spectators that choose the equal distribution of money between the pair of workers in the final, 11th decision setting.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
I have impartial spectators make distributive choices for pairs of workers. Spectators are allocated to either a luck group or a merit group. Spectators in the luck group make ten distributive decisions for pairs of workers, where the source of inequality is luck. The merit group is the same, except that the inequalities are due to differences in performance. In the final 11th decision, spectators in both groups face the same decision, which follows the pattern of the merit group. If I observe the same effect in this experiment as in the previous one, I can conclude that the effect is caused by a shift in what the spectator views as the fair outcome. If the effect is much smaller than in the previous experiment, the previously observed effect was most likely caused by a shift in the relative importance of fairness and efficiency.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomizatioon to treatment groups is done in Qualtrics
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1400 spectators. 280 workers
Sample size: planned number of observations
1400 spectators. 280 workers. Workers are not relevant data points, and only serve to provide real incentives to spectators
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
700 spectators in the luck treatment, and 700 spectators in the merit 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
NHH Internal Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2022-09-26
IRB Approval Number
NHH-IRB 42/22
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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
October 31, 2022, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
October 31, 2022, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
1388 individuals
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
1388 individuals
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
694 in Luck group and 693 in Merit group
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials