Descriptive and Normative Feedback in the Lab

Last registered on March 13, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Descriptive and Normative Feedback in the Lab
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010990
Initial registration date
March 06, 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, 8:50 AM EDT

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

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Universitat de les Illes Balears

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Toulouse School of Economics
PI Affiliation
Toulouse School of Economics
PI Affiliation
Universidad Pública de Navarra

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2023-03-07
End date
2024-03-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We want to analyze how feedback affects social behavior in a lab experiment. The experiment will be run in Palma (Illes Balears, Spain).

Subjects will play two rounds of a dictator game. They receive a 10 euros endowment in each round (one of the two rounds will be randomly chosen to determine the payment). In each round, subjects have to decide how much money they keep for themselves and how much money they donate to an NGO. The amount they decide to donate will be actually transferred to an NGO while the amount subjects' keep for themselves will be part of their individual payment.

The experiment aims to see how subjects react to normative and Kantian feedback once potential effects over beliefs are considered. In addition, it seeks to identify moderating effects. To do so, subjects will play two rounds of a dictatorship game under three different treatments: A control treatment, an informative treatment in which subjects gain information about others' behavior, and a normative (Kantian) treatment in which each subject will learn the aggregate effects that there would be if all the participants in the experiment would behave in the same way as her.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Alger, Ingela et al. 2023. "Descriptive and Normative Feedback in the Lab." AEA RCT Registry. March 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10990-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We want to analyze how feedback affects social behavior in a lab experiment. In particular, analyze how subjects react to informational and normative (kantian) feedback. The experiment will be run in Palma (Illes Balears, Spain).

Subjects will play two rounds of a dictator game. They receive a 10 euros endowment in each round (one of the two rounds will be randomly chosen to determine thepayments). In each round, they have to decide how much money they keep for themselves and how much money they donate to an NGO. The amount they decide to donate will be actually transferred to an NGO while the amount subjects' keep for themselves will be part of their individidual payment.

Subjects will be randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions: Control group, informational feedback and normative feedback. Individuals in the control group receive no feedback, individuals under the informational feedback receive information on the average contribution of their peers in the session and individuals in the normative (kantian) feedback receive information on what would happen if all their peers behaved as he/she did in the first round. In particular, this experiment aims to evaluate how subjects react to informational and normative (kantian) feedback once potential effects on beliefs are considered. In addition, it seeks to identify the moderating effects using information from a questionnaire administered at the end of the session.



Intervention Start Date
2023-03-07
Intervention End Date
2023-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Amount of money given to the NGO
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Variation in the beliefs between the first and the second round
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design

This lab experiment will compromise three different treatments:

- Control group: It is composed of two rounds. In the first round, subjects are endowed with €10 and should decide how much to keep for themselves and how much to donate to an NGO. The chosen NGO is called "Reforesta", which is dedicated to the promotion of sustainable development and contributes to the fight against desertification through the planting of trees. "Reforesta" plants and cares for a tree for each €15 it receives. Given that a tree is able, on average, to absorb 20 kg of CO2 per year and that 1 kg of CO2e equals 4,02 km of driving a gasoline car, subjects are informed that for each euro they donate to Reforesta they can save the equivalent to 5.36 kms of driving a gasoline car. When entering a potential donation, subjects can always observe how many kms of riding a gasoline car they are saving. After all the subjects have made the decision, they are asked to guess how much they think is the average donation in the session. This decision is elicited through a scoring rule in which subjects can get at most €2. Then subjects move to the second round in which they have to make the same two tasks as in the first round. After the second round, subjects have to answer a non-incentivized questionnaire asking them several questions regarding their sociodemographic background, social norms, and relationship with the environment. For the payment, the computer randomly chooses between the payoffs of the first and the second round (the sum of what they have kept for themselves and the money earned in the elicitation of beliefs).

-Information group: Everything is the same as in the Control group except for the fact that when facing the donation in the second round, subjects are informed about the mean contribution of their group in the first round.

-Normative group: Everything is the same as in the Control group except for the fact that when facing the donation in the second round, subjects are informed about how many kilometers would have been saved if everyone in the session had made exactly the same donation as him/herself in the first round.

The donations will be actually transferred to the NGO and subjects will be able to verify that this is the case (by means of an NGO certificate).

The full protocol guarantees the anonymity of the subjects. The process works as follows

1. Subjects have an envelope on the terminal and a piece of paper

2. Subjects write the pseudonym (4 letters and two numbers) chosen by themselves both on the outside of the envelope and on the piece of paper

3. The piece of paper with the pseudonym is kept by each participant

4. An experimenter takes all the envelopes (checking that they have written the pseudonym) to the room where the payments will be made

5. After the experiment, the experimenter responsible for the payments introduces the money that each subject has earned, as well as the receipt with the amount received in the envelope (based on the pseudonym).

6. When all the envelopes have been filled, a randomly chosen student hands out the envelopes to the participants (participants show him their pseudonym before receiving the envelope).

7. Participants withdraw the money and fill in the rest of the receipt (real name, address, ID, signature,...).

8. When all the envelopes are in the box, the box is taken to the FUEIB (a randomly chosen student accompanied by an experimenter).

9. After running the last session, the researchers will transfer the funds to the NGO and publish a list with the total amount donated and the individual contribution made by each participant (using their anonymous pseudonyms).
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out based on the order of arrival stratifying by gender to guarantee that sessions are gender balanced. The first male (female) subject arriving at the lab is assigned to the control treatment, the second male (female) to the descriptive treatment, the third male (female) to the normative treatment, the fourth to the control treatment, and so on and so forth.
Randomization Unit
Subject level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Between 120 and 240 subjects
Sample size: planned number of observations
Between 120 and 240 subjects
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Between 40 and 80 subjects per treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
IRB
Document Type
irb_protocol
Document Description
File
IRB

MD5: af1170681f37390a1d13cbe2f318f066

SHA1: 60fe4b2a9829def8235b7f0ba380f7d886e0cbf1

Uploaded At: March 06, 2023

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Comitè d'Ètica de la Recerca
IRB Approval Date
2023-01-20
IRB Approval Number
309CER23

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
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials