|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
The aim of the study is to study the influence of information nudges as well as the one of boosts on individual choice rationality in a laboratory economic experiment. We build a between-subject design where participants have to make repeated allocation choices using the GARP method for which we are able eventually to assess rationality scores. In the control treatments, participants did not become any help for improving their rationality score. In the nudge treatments, they obtain some help on the graphical choice interface in order for them to avoir errors in their current choices by checking the level of consistency with their past own choices. In the boosts treatments, before entering in the GARP choice sequence, participants complete different tasks in order to build a better understanding of the GARP principles. We control for several aspects for participants: Cognitive abilities, state of fatigue among others.
In the GARP experiments that had been performed before, the level of rationality is quite high, but depends highly of the rationality index that is used. We will use the most well-known rationality indexes to compare the efficiency of boosts or nudges with our control treatments.
|
After
The aim of the study is to assess the influence of nudges and boosts on individual choice rationality in a risky context based on a laboratory economic experiment. In a between-subject induced budget experiment, participants make repeated allocation choices under different conditions. The choices are displayed graphically as dots on a budget constraint. This allows us to analyse variations in participants' economic rationality. We apply the GARP (Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference) test to assess whether participants strictly abide by the utility maximization framework, and also evaluate their proximity with GARP by computing a rationality score (the Money-Pump Index). We design a total of 6 treatments : 2 nudge treatments, 2 boost treatment and 2 control treatments. In the control treatments, participants did not receive any help to improve their individual rationality. In the nudge treatments, they obtain some help directly within the graphical interface : the area where the choices are compatible with GARP is either directly identified visually, or implicitely selected through a default option. In the boosts treatments, before the series of allocation decisions, participants complete different tasks in order to improve their understanding of GARP principles. We also control for several socio-demographic characteristics including cognitive abilities, personality traits, fatigue, etc.
Whether or not it is possible to improve economic rationality at the individual level, and how, is indeed currently under researched, especially in an entirely non-parametric framework.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
May 24, 2023 04:53 PM
|
After
June 27, 2023 09:11 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
In this research, we aim at assessing how decision support tools might impacts individual choice relevancy. More precisely, we want to compare the impact of nudges and boosts on individuals’ errors. Nudges had been considered since Thaler and Sunstein 2008’s book as cost-effective mechanisms to reduce the consequence of decision biases for individuals. More recently, some debate had risen about the persistence of nudges’ effects over time (Brandon et al 2022, DellaVigna and Linos 2022). Some authors have suggested that boost interventions (Hertwig and Grune-Yanoof 2017 ; Caballero and Ploner 2022, Banerjee and John 2020), -- ie, processes where elements of reflection and understanding for the mechanism are acquired by participants for « boosting » competence – might be more efficient and more persistent.
Our intervention consists in a laboratory economic experiment where participants should make repeated allocation choices along a budget line by using the Choi et al 2007 interface and method. This method is based on the consistency of successive bundle consumption choices by an individual to GARP (Generalized Axioms of Revealed Preferences) These allocation choices are incentivized and participants get a monetary payoff at the end of the experimental session that depends upon their personal choices during this task.
These participants are randomized in 6 experimental treatments (described below) consisting in 2 control treatments, 2 nudge treatments and 2 boosts treatments. Each experimental session is organized in 8 steps for an expected duration of 1h45mn.
|
After
In this research, we aim at assessing how decision support tools might improve economic decision-making. More precisely, we want to compare the impact of nudges and boosts on individuals’ deviations from utility maximization. Nudges had been considered since Thaler and Sunstein 2008’s book as cost-effective mechanisms to reduce the consequence of decision biases for individuals. More recently, some debate had risen about the persistence of nudges’ effects over time (Brandon et al 2022, DellaVigna and Linos 2022). Some authors have suggested that boost interventions (Hertwig and Grune-Yanoof 2017 ; Caballero and Ploner 2022, Banerjee and John 2020), -- ie, processes where elements of reflection and understanding for the mechanism are acquired by participants for « boosting » competence – might be more efficient and more persistent.
Our intervention consists in a laboratory economic experiment where participants make repeated allocation choices along a budget line using the induced budget experiment from Choi et al (2007a, 2007b). This method is based on testing the consistency of successive consumption choices by an individual with GARP (Generalized Axioms of Revealed Preferences). These allocation choices are incentivized and participants get a monetary payoff at the end of the experimental session that depends upon their personal choices during this task.
These participants are randomized into 6 experimental treatments (described below) : 2 control treatments, 2 nudge treatments and 2 boosts treatments. Each experimental session is divided in 8 steps for an expected duration of 1h45mn.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
in our laboratory economic experiment, the main stage consists for participants to make repeated allocation choices along a budget line by using the Choi et al 2007 interface and method. This method is based on the consistency of successive bundle consumption choices by an individual to GARP (Generalized Axioms of Revealed Preferences). These allocation choices are incentivized and participants get a monetary payoff at the end of the experimental session that depends upon their personal choices during this task.
In the control treatments, partcipants did not get any help during the GARP sequence (information nudges) or before the GARP sequence (
In our nudge treatments, participants get some help by the computer during a given allocation choice. The computer uses previous choices made by each participant to indicate where lies the consistent choice for the current round.
In our boost treatments participants have the opportunity to learn during a 30' sequence about GARP principles and its implementation through choices along a budget line. This boost sequence occurs naturally before the GARP sequence where they repeatedly choose consumption bundles.
These participants are randomized in 6 experimental treatments (described below) consisting in 2 control treatments, 2 nudge treatments and 2 boosts treatments. Each experimental session is organized in 8 steps for an expected duration of 1h45mn.
|
After
In our laboratory economic experiment, the main stage participants make repeated allocation choices along a budget line using the induced budget experiment from Choi et al (2007a, 2007b). This method is based on the consistency of successive bundle consumption choices by an individual to GARP (Generalized Axioms of Revealed Preferences). These allocation choices are incentivized and participants get a monetary payoff at the end of the experimental session that depends upon their personal choices during this task. This method is based on testing the consistency of successive consumption choices by an individual with GARP (Generalized Axioms of Revealed Preferences). These allocation choices are incentivized and participants get a monetary payoff at the end of the experimental session that depends upon their personal choices during this task.
These participants are randomized into 6 experimental treatments (described below) : 2 control treatments, 2 nudge treatments and 2 boosts treatments. Each experimental session is divided in 8 steps for an expected duration of 1h45mn.
In the control treatments, partcipants did not receive any help during the GARP sequence (nudges) or before the GARP sequence (boosts)
In our nudge treatments, participants get some help by the computer during each round. The computer uses previous choices made by each participant to indicate where the consistent-choices set lies for the current round.
In our boost treatments participants have the opportunity to learn during a 30' sequence about GARP principles and its implementation.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Randomization is made within the experimental platform: Participants register for particular time slots for which they are available and treatments are randomized at the session level. Participants can only participate once to the experiment, which is ensured with the experirmental platform registration system based on ORSEE (See Greiner 2017).
|
After
Randomization is made within the experimental platform: Participants register for particular time slots for which they are available and treatments are randomized at the session level. Participants can only participate once to the experiment, which is ensured by the experimental platform registration system based on ORSEE (See Greiner 2017).
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
Session-level randomization: Participants register to participate on time slots and they are randomized in our various treatments. individuals are randomly assigned to the treatment and comparison groups
|
After
Session-level randomization: Participants register to participate on time slots and they are randomized in our various treatments. Individuals are randomly assigned to the treatment and comparison groups.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
330 participants for individual choices, experimental sessions of 20 participants as a whole for all treatments but Control 2, that will have only 15 participants. The total number of experimental sessions to complete is 17.
|
After
385 participants for individual choices, with 70 participants for all treatments but control 2 (robustness check) for which we plan to recruit only 35 participants. Given a even split of participants within the experimental sessions, the number of experimental sessions to complete is 17.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
330 participants will make 50 allocation choices during the GARP sequence after having 5 trials. Moreover they will answer to 2 fatigue questionnaires (2 scores per participant, before and after the boost sequence), a Cognitive Reflection Test. We also observe their answers during the boost sequence. Last, they should complete the Big5 personality test (Goldberg 1992) before the usual post experimental questionnaire.
|
After
385 participants will make 50 allocation choices. Moreover they will answer to 2 fatigue questionnaires (2 scores per participant, before and after the boost sequence). We also observe their answers during the boost sequence. Last, they should complete the Big5 personality test and the Cognitive Reflection Test before the usual post experimental questionnaire.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
- in Control 1 (Basic GARP sequence based on Choi et al 2007) we will have 60 subjects and therefore 60 independent observations for GARP indexes
- in Control 2, 30 participants
- In Nudge 1: 60 participants
- In Nudge 2: 60 participants
- In Boost 1 : 60 participants
- In Boost 2 : 60 participants
|
After
- in Control 1 (Basic 50-decisions sequence based on Choi et al 2007) we will have 70 subjects and therefore 70 independent observations
- in Control 2, 35 participants
- In Nudge 1: 70 participants
- In Nudge 2: 70 participants
- In Boost 1 : 70 participants
- In Boost 2 : 70 participants
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
In our experimental design, 6 treatments are to be implemented. The basic task consists for a participant to choose a consumption bundle along a given budgetary line that changes at each round of choice. There will be 50 rounds of choices under the Choi et al 2007 method. Answers to these tasks enable us to assess various rationality scores that are widely used in the GARP literature.
For the nudge treatments, we implement 2 treatments. In the first one -- Nudge 1 --, during the allocation choices task that evaluates the consistency with GARP axioms, the computer uses previous allocation choices made under various budget lines to indicate to the participant for the current choice which segment line is consistent with their past choices and which segment line is inconsistent. The participant should therefore make an allocation choice either in the 'good' line segment but remains totally free to make a choice that belong to the 'bad' line segment. The second one -- Nudge 2 -- is a variant of Nudge 1; Instead of indicating a 'good' and a 'bad' line segment to each participant, the computer randomly selects a choice bundle that is consistent with their previous bundle choices. That is, the random bundle lies within the 'good' line segment but without materializing the segment in the computer graphical interface.
For the boosts treatments, we also implement 2 treatments. The first one --- Boost 1 -- consists in a 30' duration teaching course about GARP. This course is divided in 2 phases, a 10' video teaching course that explains the basic principles of GARP theory + numerical illustrations about bundle choices and a 20' practice task where each participant should learn to identify choice inconsistencies in numerical exercices. Answers are collected through the computer interface and the participant will have the opportunity to assess her level of understanding by obtaining active feedback regarding her answers to the numerical applications. The second one -- Boost 2 -- uses the Money Pump Argument by Echenique et al 2011. The ideal is that a consumer that violates GARP is subject to being exploited as a "money pump". This money pump will be stronger if the severity of violation of GARP is higher and a Money Pump Index could be meased by the amount of money that could be extracted from the consumer. In our boost 2, each participant directly confronts to a computer AI that tries to extract money from her depending on his previous allocation choices during a sequence of 30'. The participant makes a choice and has the opportunity to consider which amount could be extracted by the computer from choosing this particular bundle given her previous sequence of choices, which incites her to change her current choice. Contradingly to the GARP choice sequence that occurs after, boosts are non monetary-incentivized.
In order to compare cleanly our experimental treatments, we will implement two control treatments: The first one -- Control 1 -- is the basic 50 rounds sequence of allocation choices to be completed by each participant, and that was implement in past economic experiments that are reported in the literature. The second control -- Control 2 --- consists in putting randomly a bundle choice on the budgetary line for each participant at each round. This control enables us to compare more properly the choice outcomes to the ones under the Nudge 2 treatment, where a random bundle choice occurs in the 'good' line segment.
Moreover, an important characteristic of our experiment is that we implement in all treatments but boost ones a 'fake' boost before the GARP choice sequence. The implementation of it is explained by the fact that participants that are in the boost treatments will be confronted with tasks that are cognitively highly-demanding, which is not the case in the other treatments. In this 'fake' boost that lasts 30' (like in the other boosts), participants are exposed to a 10' duration teaching course about macroeconomic theory of growth and then should complete tasks with numerical applications aiming at computing growth rates and the contributions of production factors to it. In order to check the comparability of this fake boost to the GARP boosts, we will also use a psychometric score for measuring fatigue level before and after the boost sequence (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory measure, see Smets et al 1995).
We use also the Cognitive Reflection Test to measure cognitive abilities for each participant.
|
After
In our experimental design, 6 treatments are to be implemented. The basic task consists for a participant in choosing a consumption bundle along a given budgetary line that changes at each round of choice. There will be 50 rounds of choices using the design popularized by Choi et al. (2007a, 2007b). Answers to these tasks enable us to assess various rationality scores that are widely used in the GARP literature. Before the 50-decisions task, all participants play a 5-decisions task to acquire some experience with the interface.
For the nudge treatments, we implement 2 treatments. In the first one -- Nudge 1 --, the standard interface is augmented with colors that identify the segments of the budget line that are compatible with GARP. Specifically, relying on the sequence of past choices, the computer shades the segments of the budget line that are GARP-incompatible. The participant should therefore select an allocation from the 'right' line segment but remains totally free to make a choice along the 'wrong' line segment. The second one -- Nudge 2 -- is a variant of Nudge 1; Instead of indicating a 'right' and a 'wrong' line segment to each participant, the computer randomly selects a choice bundle that is consistent with their previous bundle choices as a default option. That is, the random bundle lies within the 'good' line segment but without materializing the segment in the computer graphical interface.
For the boosts treatments, we also implement 2 treatments. Both boosts occur before the 50-decisions sequence. The first one --- Boost 1 -- consists in a 30' duration teaching course about GARP. This course is divided in 2 phases, a 10' video teaching course that explains the basic principles of GARP theory + numerical illustrations about bundle choices and a 20' practice task where each participant should learn to identify choice inconsistencies in numerical exercices. Answers are collected through the computer interface and each participant have the opportunity to assess her level of understanding by obtaining immediate feedback regarding her answers to the numerical applications. The second one -- Boost 2 -- uses the Money Pump Argument developped in Echenique et al 2011. The idea is that a consumer that violates GARP is subject to being exploited as a "money pump". This money pump will be stronger if the severity of violations of GARP are more important and a Money Pump Index could be measured by the amount of money that can be extracted from the consumer by an arbitrager. In our boost 2, each participant is directly confronted to a computer AI that tries to extract money from her depending on her previous allocation choices during 30'. The participant makes a choice and has the opportunity to consider which amount could be extracted by the computer from choosing this particular bundle given her previous sequence of choices. Contrary to the 50-decisions sequence, boosts are non monetary-incentivized.
In order to compare cleanly our experimental treatments, we implement two control treatments: The first one -- Control 1 -- is the basic 50 rounds sequence of allocation choices to be completed by each participant, and that was implement in past economic experiments that are reported in the literature. The second control -- Control 2 --- consists in selecting a choice bundle at random along the budget line for each participant at each round. This control enables us toto obtain a more comparable benchmark for the Nudge 2 treatment where a choice bundle is selected within the « right » line segment.
Moreover, an important characteristic of our experiment is that we implement a 'fake' boost before the 50-decisions sequence in all treatments but boost ones. The aim of this « fake » boost is to control for the cognitive burden and induced fatigue implied by the « real » boosts. In this "fake" boost that lasts 30' (like in the other boosts), participants are exposed to a 10' duration teaching course about macroeconomic theory of growth and then should complete tasks with numerical applications aiming at computing growth rates and the contributions of production factors to it. In order to check the comparability of this fake boost to the GARP boosts in terms of induced fatigue, we will also use a psychometric score for measuring the fatigue level before and after the boost sequence (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory measure, see Smets et al 1995). We use also the Cognitive Reflection Test (Frederick, 2005) to measure cognitive abilities for each participant, the BIG-5 personality test (Rammstedt and John, 2007) and a standard socio-demographic questionnaire at the end of the experiment.
|