SNR - Signal to Noise Ratio

Last registered on March 21, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
SNR - Signal to Noise Ratio
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0011114
Initial registration date
March 17, 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 21, 2023, 4:40 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano - Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2023-03-20
End date
2023-04-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Does a disturbed environment increase strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in subject choices? Does it increase strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in communication? In this experiment subjects are paired with a partner in a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. They are randomly assigned (with a probability of 1/3) to treatment which consists of a random probability of their choices being reversed by the system (so to simulate the noise/disturbance). Assignment to Control, Treatment 1 (20% noise) and T2 (noise 40%) is done by the experimenters through the distribution of different codes. Within each treatment arm, after each round is played and results are revealed, subjects can send a message (choosing from a menu list) to each other before being proposed a further round of the game (with a probability of 75%)
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
MAGGIONI, Mario A. and Domenico Rossignoli. 2023. "SNR - Signal to Noise Ratio." AEA RCT Registry. March 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11114-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Does a disturbed environment increase strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in subject choices? Does it increase strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in communication? In this experiment subjects are paired with a partner in a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. They are randomly assigned (with a probability of 1/3) to treatment which consists of a random probability of their choices being reversed by the system (so to simulate the noise/disturbance). Assignment to Control, Treatment 1 (20% noise) and T2 (noise 40%) is done by the experimenters through the distribution of different codes. Within each treatment arm, after each round is played and results are revealed, subjects can send a message (choosing from a menu list) to each other before being proposed a further round of the game (with a probability of 75%)
Intervention Start Date
2023-03-20
Intervention End Date
2023-04-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
share of cooperative choice, communication
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
choice is a binary variable: C/N
communication is one of the following proposed messages
Sorry, I made a mistake
What a shame we didn't cooperate
I'm upset because you didn't cooperate
It's not my fault! The system changed my choiceI
I fooled you
Hooray! Nice result
So you learn!

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment is designed to test whether the existence and the extend of noise in an environment influence the share of strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in subject choices and in intersubject communication?
In this experiment subjects are paired with the same partner in a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. They are randomly assigned (with a probability of 1/3) to treatment which consists of a random probability of their choices being reversed by the system (so to simulate the noise/disturbance). Assignment to Control, Treatment 1 (20% noise) and T2 (noise 40%) is done by the experimenters through the distribution of different codes. Within each treatment arm, after each round is played and results are revealed, subjects can send a message (choosing from a menu list) to each other before being proposed a further round of the game (with a probability of 75%).
Experimental Design Details
The experiment is designed to test whether the existence and the extend of noise in an environment influence the share of strategic/non-pro-social behaviours in subject choices and in intersubject communication?
In this experiment subjects are paired with the same partner in a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. They are randomly assigned (with a probability of 1/3) to treatment which consists of a random probability of their choices being reversed by the system (so to simulate the noise/disturbance). Assignment to Control, Treatment 1 (20% noise) and T2 (noise 40%) is done by the experimenters through the distribution of different codes. Within each treatment arm, after each round is played and results are revealed, subjects can send a message (choosing from a menu list) to each other before being proposed a further round of the game (with a probability of 75%).
Randomization Method
randomization are done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
the 1st level of randomization is the assignment of each subject to one out of 3 treatment arms
the 2nd level of randomization concerns the number of round the game is played by a given pair (according to a probability of 75% to proceed to the next round)

Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
we do not have cluster treatment randomization
Sample size: planned number of observations
between 225 and 600
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
between 75 and 200
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design). The outcome is expressed in relative terms (proportions within each experimental group), within the interval 0-1. Our power analysis has been conducted on the following parameters: Power: 80% Alpha (threshold for statistical significance): 0.05 Treatment/Control ratio: 1 The mean value for cooperation rate is consistent with the average cooperation rate observed in 8 experimental studies involving a Prisoner’s Dilemma with Italian subjects, which are published in 5 papers, namely Pepitone et al. (1967, 1970); Gallucci and Perugini (2000); Ciardo et al. (2015); Meier et al. (2016). The weighted average of the cooperation rate in these studies is 49.23%. If we exclude the earliest study, the cooperation rate is 55%. Data retrieved from https://app.cooperationdatabank.org/. We explore three scenarios w.r.t. control group means: one at 0.5, one at 0.55 and one at 0.6. Standard deviation is constant in all scenarios 0.2. The Minimum Detectable Effect Size for the main outcomes is: - Lower bound sample size (150): 0.0921 - Upper bound sample size (400): 0.0562  Assuming a larger standard deviation: 0.3: - Lower bound sample size (150): 0.1381    - Upper bound sample size (400): 0.0843 The same analysis clearly applies to any treatment arm.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number

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