Joint Impact of Peer Identity and Behavior on Rule Compliance

Last registered on May 01, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Joint Impact of Peer Identity and Behavior on Rule Compliance
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010950
Initial registration date
March 01, 2023

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
March 13, 2023, 8:33 AM EDT

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

Last updated
May 01, 2023, 3:23 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania
PI Affiliation
University of Nottingham
PI Affiliation
Aarhus University
PI Affiliation
University of Amsterdam

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2023-04-17
End date
2023-04-21
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The establishment and maintenance of social norms is dependent on the behaviors of one’s reference network. By definition, social norms are behaviors that individuals conform to on the condition that most people in their network conform to the same behavior and also expect the individual to conform to that behavior. The belief that others conform to a behavior, known as empirical expectations, is largely dependent on witnessing that behavior in practice. Therefore, witnessing social norm violation should encourage more social norm violation since the empirical expectation for norm compliance has been reduced. Yet, not all peers in a reference network are equal. Those with lower social distance, or ingroup members, should play a more significant role in shaping one’s willingness to comply with a social norm, both positively and negatively.

In this study we conduct an experiment to probe the interaction between group identity and peer behavior. Social distance is established by having participants identify what they see in a well-known optical illusion (“the dress”), with those who perceive the image the same way being classified into the same peer group. Participants are tasked with either complying with a rule and suffering a financial loss, or violating the rule to earn more money, but only after they witness the behaviors of previous participants. In particular, we look at how group identification may create contrast effects that do not exist in homogeneous groups in case of simple rules. A contrast effect happens when some observed negative behavior focuses subjects on a rule that prescribes the opposite behavior, inducing higher compliance rates when this negative behavior is displayed by an outgroup member than by an ingroup member.


Experimental setup
We randomly assign treatments to participants that vary the number of ingroup/outgroup peers as well as number of rule violators and compliers that they witness. More specifically, we will run treatments with 7 peers, varying the number of violators (0 or 1) and their group identity (ingroup or outgroup). We study the role of minority status in rule compliance, looking for contrast effects. The treatments are herein defined as:

Treatments I: participant has a majority status (Ingroup)
I1: Seven ingroup peers with six who comply and one who violates the rule.
I2: Seven ingroup peers who all comply with the rule.
I3: Six ingroup peers who all comply and one outgroup peer who violates the rule.
I4: Six ingroup peers who all comply and one outgroup peer who complies with the rule.
I5: Six ingroup peers with five who comply, one who violates the rule and one outgroup peer who complies with the rule.

Treatments O: participant has a minority status (Outgroup)
O1: Seven outgroup peers with six who comply and one who violates the rule.
O2: Seven outgroup peers who all comply with the rule.
O3: Six outgroup peers who all comply and one ingroup peer who violates the rule.
O4: Six outgroup peers who all comply and one ingroup peer who complies with the rule.
O5: Six outgroup peers with five who comply, one who violates the rule and one ingroup peer who complies with the rule.

Participants choose to either comply with the rule or to violate it. Violating the rule always leads to higher monetary payoffs. This means that our outcome variable is binary (0=violate; 1=comply with the rule).

Hypotheses
We are interested in our sample’s rate of compliance in response to any of the ten treatments. In what follows, we clarify our main hypotheses in terms of rates of compliance in response to the treatments defined above:

H1: Observing a violation reduces compliance.
Tests:
I1 < I2
I3 < I4
O1 < O2

H2: Compliance reduces more strongly if the violator has higher social proximity (‘ingroup’)
Tests:
I2 – I1 > I4 – I3
I2 – I1 > O2 – O1
O4 - O3 > O2 - O1

H3: Compliance reduces most strongly when the violator is a minority ingroup.
Test: O4 - O3 > I2 - I1

Auxiliary hypotheses:
AH1: I3 > I5. Confirm that the effect expected in H2 is not simply due to a change in the group identity composition but is specific to the “contrast effect”
AH2: O3 > O5. Confirm that the effect expected in H4 is not simply due to a change in the group identity composition.
AH3: I3 > I4. The contrast effect encourages compliance when participants view an outgroup violator.

In sum, we hypothesize that ingroup peers who violate norms will encourage more norm violation than outgroup norm violators will, and ingroup peers who comply will encourage more participant compliance than outgroup compliance will.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bicchieri, Cristina et al. 2023. "Joint Impact of Peer Identity and Behavior on Rule Compliance." AEA RCT Registry. May 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10950-1.3
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2023-04-17
Intervention End Date
2023-04-21

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The key outcome variable of interest in this experiment is participant compliance with a given rule.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The outcome of compliance is constructed through the combination of the established rule and the participant decision. During the experiment the participant will be told that the decision is to either turn left or turn right. At a point in the experiment the participant will decide to go left or right, with each direction having an associated payoff. If the participant follows the given rule, then they have complied. If they do not follow the rule, then they have exhibited non-compliance.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants, who are recruited online, begin by reading an introduction page where they are told what tasks they will be doing and the amount of time they should expect to take. Next they will identify the color of a dress that is presented to them. The dress is a well known optical phenomenon where some see it as gold and white, and some see it as blue and black. This will define their peer identity group. Those who see the dress the same color as the participant are the in-group and those who see it differently are the out-group. Participants are given instructions and complete a comprehension check.
Next, the participant is given a rule for what decision to make. The rule can be either to turn left or right. Then, the participant is shown a forked road that splits to the left and right. The participant then sees the behavior of previous participants. We randomly assign treatments to participants that vary the number of ingroup/outgroup peers as well as number of rule violators and compliers. The participant then makes a decision to go left or right. Again, each option is associated with a payoff of either $0.5 or $1.
Participants finish the study by offering their gender, age, and feedback, then are informed of their final payoff, including participation fee and bonus.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
All randomization is pseudo-randomly generated using a javascript math library. Treatments are assigned iteratively to participants based on their order of arrival.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is individual. Each participant is randomly assigned a treatment without group level clusters.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
7000 participants.
Sample size: planned number of observations
7000 participants.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
7000 observations per treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Nottingham
IRB Approval Date
2022-11-28
IRB Approval Number
N/A

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?
No
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
April 21, 2023, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
10
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
7024
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Treatment 1: 696, Treatment 2: 714, Treatment 3: 713, Treatment 4: 705, Treatment 5: 697, Treatment 6: 704, Treatment 7: 693, Treatment 8: 697, Treatment 9: 703, Treatment 10: 702
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials