Who Should Receive Relative Feedback? And Why? (Addition)

Last registered on March 15, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Who Should Receive Relative Feedback? And Why? (Addition)
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013047
Initial registration date
March 08, 2024

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 15, 2024, 6:26 PM EDT

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

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Saskia Opitz
Affiliation
University of Cologne
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Dirk Sliwka
PI Affiliation
University of Cologne
PI Name
Timo Vogelsang
PI Affiliation
Frankfurt School of Finance & Management
PI Name
Tom Zimmermann
PI Affiliation
University of Cologne

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2023-01-16
End date
2024-12-31
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
Feedback
JEL code(s)
C21, C93, M54
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
Previous research has provided evidence that feedback in the form of relative performance information (RPI) can increase employees’ performance. However, it is very likely that the strength of the performance effects resulting from such a feedback depends on the feedback recipient’s personality traits and prior performance (e.g., whether the feedback is positive or negative). In this study, we aim to investigate whether machine learning can enhance the effects of RPI by tailoring it to an employee's individual characteristics. Additionally, we will utilize both closed-form and open-ended questions to target RPI and explore the use of alternative data sources. In this addition to AEARCTR-0012213, we investigate whether monetary incentives can increase performance in our task significantly above the level RPI can.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Opitz, Saskia et al. 2024. "Who Should Receive Relative Feedback? And Why? (Addition)." AEA RCT Registry. March 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13047-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
In the RPI treatment, participants will receive feedback in the form of relative performance information. That is, they receive feedback on their percentile ranks based on how many grids they correctly solved during the 7.5 minutes of a real-effort task. In the incentive group, participants do not receive relative performance information but a piece rate for each mistake they identify in the real-effort grid task.
Intervention Start Date
2024-03-11
Intervention End Date
2024-03-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The primary outcome variable is the number of correctly identified mistakes in the second 7.5 minutes of the real-effort task (controlling for the number of correctly identified mistakes in the first working phase).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcome variables are stress while working on the task and enjoyment of the task.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We run the experiment on Prolific. In the real-effort task, participants have to identify mistakes in 10-row by 15-column grids with symbols, i.e., numbers, letters or emojis. A mistake is defined as a symbol that differs from the most commonly occurring symbol in the specific grid. In each grid, there are between one and five mistakes and participants have to provide the location of each mistake. They have 7.5 minutes to solve as many grids as possible. All participants receive information about the number of correctly identified mistakes on their screen.

After this first work phase, participants will be randomly assigned to either a RPI treatment or an incentive group. In the RPI treatment, participants will receive feedback in the form of relative performance information. That is, they receive feedback on their percentile ranks based on how many mistakes they correctly identified during the 7.5 minutes of the real effort task. The percentile rank is computed in comparison to participants from a pilot study in which no RPI was provided. In the incentive group, participants will not receive any relative performance feedback but are informed that they will receive a piece rate for each mistake they correctly identify in the second work phase.

Afterwards, participants work again 7.5 minutes on the same real effort task and, after completing the task, receive information on the number of correctly identified mistakes on their screen as well as their relative performance if they were in the RPI treatment after completing the task or the total bonus amount if they are in the incentive group. At the end, they will complete a short post-survey consisting of control questions as well as questions regarding stress while working on the task, enjoyment with the task, whether they would have liked to receive (no) relative performance information, and how important it was for them to do well on the task. At the end of the experiment, workers will be redirected to Prolific and all receive the same fixed compensation as well as their additionally earned bonuses.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We will randomize participants into RPI or incentive group such that there is an equal number of subjects in each group
Randomization Unit
Individual subject
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
The number of clusters is the same as the number of observations (please see below).
Sample size: planned number of observations
We invite 200 individual subjects to participate in the study.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 individual subjects in the RPI treatment and 100 individual subjects in the incentive group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Cologne Ethical Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2023-07-10
IRB Approval Number
230034SO
Analysis Plan