Why Do People Change Their Work Plans?

Last registered on April 14, 2023
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Why Do People Change Their Work Plans?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0011140
Initial registration date
April 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
April 13, 2023, 3:47 PM EDT

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

Last updated
April 14, 2023, 6:40 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Australia
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Matthew Gibson
Affiliation
Williams College
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Zachary Breig
PI Affiliation
University of Queensland
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Jeffrey Shrader
PI Affiliation
Columbia University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2023-04-06
End date
2023-05-12
Keywords
Behavior, Lab
Additional Keywords
discounting, beliefs, dynamic inconsistency, real effort
JEL code(s)
C91, D15, D84, D90, J22
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Research has shown that procrastination has significant adverse effects on individuals, including lower savings and poorer health. Procrastination is typically modeled as resulting from present bias. We study an alternative model of procrastination: excessively optimistic beliefs about future demands on an individual's time. The two models can be distinguished by how individuals respond to information on their past choices. We propose two complementary experiments to test the predictions of the models. If the experimental results refute the hypothesis that present bias is the sole source of dynamic inconsistency, this will have important implications for the large literature on present-biased discounting behavior. Moreover, it will have important practical implications. The findings will offer an explanation, for example, for low takeup of commitment and suggest that personalized information on past choices could instead be an important tool for mitigating procrastination.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Breig, Zachary, Matthew Gibson and Jeffrey Shrader. 2023. "Why Do People Change Their Work Plans?." AEA RCT Registry. April 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11140-2.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2023-04-06
Intervention End Date
2023-05-12

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1) Task reallocation (committed unconditional vs. uncommitted realized)
2) Task reallocation (committed vs. uncommitted, within information condition)
3) Commitment demand
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
1) The week-two difference between the committed unconditional task allocation and the uncommitted realized allocation.
2) The week-two difference between the committed task allocation and the uncommitted allocation, within information condition (easy, hard, or unconditional).
3) The task-denominated difference between commitment demand in week two and commitment demand in week one.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We will conduct an experiment where we induce time shocks ourselves. Each subject will complete the experiment over four sessions. We will inform subjects that they will be offered the opportunity to complete real-effort tasks at a piece rate in sessions two and four of the experiment.

In the first session of the experiment, subjects start by competing in a contest. The contest will be between pairs of participants and will involve completing real-effort tasks (an intelligence quiz). Subjects will be told that the winner of the contest will receive easier tasks in a future session, while the loser will receive more difficult tasks. After the contest, we will elicit each subject's beliefs about the likelihood that she has won the contest. The subjects will then make a series of choices: (1) how many unpaid tasks they would be willing to complete in order to increase the likelihood that their choices in the first session are implemented, (2) how many tasks they would commit to doing in session two at various piece rates _without_ knowing the outcome of the contest, (3) how many tasks they would commit to doing in session two at various piece rates assuming that they win the contest, and (4) how many tasks they would commit to doing in session two at various piece rates assuming that they lose the contest.

In the second session of the experiment, which will be completed at least 24 hours after the first, subjects will again choose (1) how many tasks they would commit to doing in this session at various piece rates _without_ knowing the outcome of the contest, (2) how many tasks they would commit to doing in this session at various piece rates assuming that they win the contest, and (3) how many tasks they would commit to doing in this session at various piece rates assuming that they lose the contest. The subject will then learn the outcome of the contest, which piece rate has been randomly selected to be implemented, and which of their choices (session one or session two, and conditional on contest outcome or not) will be implemented. Then they will be required to complete their chosen number of tasks.

The third and fourth sessions of the experiment will be completed in the week following the first two sessions, and will involve the same series of choices with one added step. After completing the contest but before choosing whether they want to commit, subjects will be randomly divided into thirds, with each third receiving one information treatment. In the _no information_ (control) condition, subjects will proceed immediately to the commitment decision. In the _contest information_ treatment, subjects will receive information of the form ``We also matched you with two other randomly drawn participants from the previous study, and you (lost against both/won against one/won against both) of them.'' In the _task information_ treatment, subjects will receive information of the form ``In Session 2, for a payment rate of Z per set and (knowing the sets would be easy/knowing the sets would be hard/not knowing whether the sets would be easy or hard), you agreed to complete X1 sets. In Session 3, in the same setting, you agreed to complete X2 sets.''
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Group assignments will be based on a random number drawn within Qualtrics
Randomization Unit
Subject
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
~1000 subjects
Sample size: planned number of observations
~1000 observations (one row per subject)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Control: ~333 subjects
Contest information: ~333 subjects
Task information: ~333 subjects
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Human Research Ethics Committees
IRB Approval Date
2022-11-21
IRB Approval Number
2022/HE002255
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Pre-Analysis Plan: Why Do People Change Their Work Plans?

MD5: 9ac7a0625d0a0c3a095b06cfee50665e

SHA1: b2888918c9cfc2b4a61db63a491e44a1f90856b1

Uploaded At: April 14, 2023

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