Experimental Design Details
After reading the experimental instructions, participants will answer extensive comprehension checks to ensure a sufficient understanding of the experimental design and task rules. Participants will then have the opportunity to solve two example test items, before making a voting decision on whether they prefer the performance test or the lottery to serve as the payoff mechanism. Which mechanism is eventually implemented is determined by the majority vote among all 100 participants. After the vote, participants will be asked to provide the rationale for their decision to gain a deeper understanding on their motives. Subsequently, participants will play both the test and the lottery, to eliminate effort avoidance as a decision motive. The test will be based on vocabulary knowledge and consists of 20 items. If the majority of participants votes for the test, the better performing half of the 100 participants would receive a bonus payment, i.e. 50% (variance = 0).
The lottery mechanism will differ between the replication condition (control group) and the treatment condition. In the replication group, participants will choose a number from 1 to 6. After all 100 subjects participated, it would be randomly determined whether all participants with even or all participants with odd numbers will receive the bonus payment. This yields a probabilistic win probability of 50% (variance = 0.25) and parallels the dynamics of the die roll used by Hoelzl and Rustichini. In the treatment group, participants will also choose a number from 1 to 6. The number chosen, in conjunction with the participants unique Prolific worker ID, will constitute the participants “lottery code”. After all 100 subjects participated, 50 lottery codes would be chosen randomly to receive the bonus payment. This yields a fixed win probability of 50% (variance = 0) and parallels a prize draw with 50 wins and 50 blanks being placed in an urn.
Before and after the performance test, participants will be asked the same questions on their pre-test expectations and post-test reflection as in the original study by Hoelzl and Rustichini. Ultimately, a multi-page questionnaire will be included to assess alternative decision motives that are hinted to be related to the voting outcome in the literature, including attitudes in terms of risk, ambiguity, altruism, social comparison, and self-efficacy, which can be compared to participants’ self-reported rationales.