Motivated Self-Control

Last registered on October 04, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Motivated Self-Control
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0012449
Initial registration date
November 09, 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
November 17, 2023, 8:00 AM EST

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

Last updated
October 04, 2024, 9:37 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Chinese University of Hong Kong

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Chinese University of Hong Kong

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2023-11-15
End date
2024-01-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Building on the seminal work of Benabou and Tirole (2004), we study the motivated belief on present bias. In particular, it is beneficial from the current self’s perspective to maintain an optimistic belief about present bias, as this optimistic belief can motivate the future self to undertake challenging tasks. If the future self is fully aware of her present bias, she might be too discouraged to even make an attempt. We test this motivated belief on present bias using a field experiment in the classroom setting.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Huang, Wei and Yingzhi Liang. 2024. "Motivated Self-Control." AEA RCT Registry. October 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.12449-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2023-11-15
Intervention End Date
2024-01-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The difference between ideal and actual completion of Challenge 1.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
This measures individuals’ perseverance (self-control) level. This is a proxy for present bias.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
The sign-up rate for Challenge 2.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
This measures individuals’ perceptions of their present bias.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We study why people are overly optimistic about their self-control (present bias). Our hypothesis is that an optimistic view on present bias can motivate people to undertake challenging tasks.

We plan to test this hypothesis in a classroom setting. We aim to observe the following:
- Students who are confident in their self-control ability are more likely to start a challenging assignment.
- If students remember a previous failure in completing an assignment, they are less likely to start a challenging assignment.
- To avoid remembering a failure, students persevere more in order to maintain an optimistic belief in their self-control ability.

We plan to conduct this experiment in an introductory economics course. Students in this course are freshmen and sophomores in the business major at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Experimental Design Details
To test the motivational effect of the upward bias on the belief in one’s present bias, we conduct a randomized control trial in a classroom setting. We ask students to take a 7-day challenge, which involves completing 3 exercise questions every day for 7 days. We repeat this challenge twice: once at the beginning of the semester and once at the end of the semester but before the final exam. The first challenge is unincentivized, helping students understand the rule and form beliefs about their present bias. The second challenge is incentivized by course credits, with students earning 0.1 points for each question completed. Before participating in the second challenge, students are asked to choose between receiving 1.5 points directly or participating in the challenge.

Students are randomized into three treatments: ex-ante perfect memory, ex-post perfect memory, and imperfect memory. Students in the ex-ante perfect memory treatment are aware before participating in the first challenge that they will be reminded of their completion status of the first challenge before they choose to participate in the second one. Students in the ex-post perfect memory treatment are not aware but receive reminders, nonetheless. Students in the imperfect memory treatment do not receive reminders about their completion status of the first task before they choose to participate in the second one.

Our first hypothesis is that students in the ex-ante perfect memory treatment will, on average, be more likely to complete the first challenge than those in the other two treatments because, when failures cannot be forgotten, students must persevere to maintain an optimistic belief about their present biases. Our second hypothesis is that students in the ex-post perfect memory treatment will be less likely to sign up for the second challenge than those in the imperfect memory treatment or the ex-ante perfect memory treatment because they have a less optimistic belief about their present bias.

Our randomization is done at the individual level, and we use stratified randomization based on Survey 1 answers and past GPA.

The experiment includes two surveys and two challenges. We explain each item in chronological order.

Survey 1:
Students are informed about the two challenges: the first challenge is not incentivized, but the second one is. They are also informed that if they decide not to take the second challenge, they will earn 0.5 points directly. Students are then given an example of a review question contained in Challenge 1 and asked to predict their performance in Challenge 1:
1. To achieve the best learning outcome, ideally, how many questions will you complete?
2. Predict how many questions you will actually complete.
3. Other course-related questions include how confident they are with this course and how much time they spend on this course weekly.
If their predictions are within two questions of their actual completion, they earn 0.1 points of course credit. Completion of this survey earns them 0.9 points.

Students in the ex-ante perfect memory treatment are told that they will be reminded about their ideal, predicted, and actual completion later this semester (in Survey 2).

Challenge 1:
Students are asked to complete 3 multiple-choice questions per day for 7 consecutive days. They are not rewarded with course credits for completion. To ensure that different students have a similar cost of completing this exercise, we use an interactive interface, showing students the correct answer along with explanations after they make an attempt. Students must select the correct answer before they can move on to the next question. To avoid random clicking, students are required to stay on the question and answer page for at least five minutes before moving on to the next.

Reminder:
In the email that sends out Survey 2, students in the ex-ante perfect memory and ex-post perfect memory treatments are reminded by email about their ideal, predicted, and actual completion of Challenge 1. Students in the imperfect memory treatment are not reminded.

Survey 2:
Students are informed again about the rule of Challenge 2.
1. To achieve the best learning outcome, ideally, how many questions will you complete?
2. Predict how many questions you will actually complete.
3. You will get 0.5 points directly if you choose not to participate in Challenge 2. Would you like to participate in Challenge 2?

If their predictions are within two questions of their actual completion, they earn 0.1 points. Completion of this survey earns them 0.9 points.

Challenge 2:
Challenge 2 is similar to Challenge 1, except that students earn 0.1 point per question.

Based on our theoretical predictions, we expect to observe the following treatment effects and heterogeneous effects.

Treatment effects:

Hypothesis 1:
Students in the ex-ante perfect memory treatment will have a smaller gap between their ideal and actual completion of Challenge 1 than those in the other two treatments.

Hypothesis 2:
Students in the ex-post perfect memory treatment will have a lower sign-up rate for Challenge 2 than those in the other two treatments.
Randomization Method
Randomisation done in office by a computer based on student IDs.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
5 classes
Sample size: planned number of observations
269 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Our random assignment is at the individual level. We have 90 students in the "ex-ante perfect memory" treatment, 90 students in the "imperfect memory" treatment, and 89 students in the "ex-post perfect memory" treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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
Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee at The Chinese University of Hong Kong
IRB Approval Date
2024-08-22
IRB Approval Number
SBRE‐24‐0037
IRB Name
Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee at The Chinese University of Hong Kong
IRB Approval Date
2023-11-09
IRB Approval Number
SBRE‐23‐0252

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