Back to History Current Version

Motivated Self-Control

Last registered on November 17, 2023
View Trial History

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.

Locations

Country
Hong Kong
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Yingzhi Liang
Affiliation
University of Texas at Dallas
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Wei Huang
PI Affiliation
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2023-11-15
End date
2023-12-20
Keywords
Behavior, Education
Additional Keywords
Present Bias, Self-control, Motivated Belief, Field Experiment
JEL code(s)
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. 2023. "Motivated Self-Control." AEA RCT Registry. November 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.12449-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2023-11-15
Intervention End Date
2023-12-20

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The difference between ideal and actual completion of Exercise 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 difference between ideal and predicted completion of Exercise 2.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
This measures individuals’ perceptions of their present bias.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We ask students to complete assignments with two deadlines. Students who finish their assignments before the first deadline earn extra points. Our assignment scheme resembles real-effort Convex Time Budget (CTB) choices. 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 completing the assignment that they will be reminded of their completion status, whereas 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 assignment completion status. Our first hypothesis is that students in the ex-ante perfect memory treatment will, on average, complete the assignment earlier 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 have a lower belief in their present bias than those in the imperfect memory treatment because they are reminded of their failure.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
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
340
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Our random assignment is at the individual level. We have 134 students in the "ex-ante perfect memory" treatment, 134 students in the "imperfect memory" treatment, and 72 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
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

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
Analysis Plan