|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The experimental design involves two parallel sessions to assess the elicitation of beliefs of both senders and receivers. The two sessions are performed as separate online experiments, one with the senders (Experiment 1) and one with the receivers (Experiment 2). The samples are recruited using the Prolific platform.
The experiments have a symmetric structure. First we ask for actions and then we measure beliefs. There are two treatments variations directions. The between-subjects treatment variation is designed to control for potential behavioral distortions due to the knowledge of a specific distribution of potential rating scores. The second scenario presents a within-subjects treatment variation whose objective is to check, independently of the distribution, whether the magnitude of B, the set containing all the possible values, affects the voluntary disclosure of the player. Participants will earn an additional amount according to their performance in each round. They will play a total of 10 rounds. The order of within-subjects vatiations is fairly randomised.
To provide more details, in the sender/owner experiment, participants are initially assigned to one of three between-subject treatments, each corresponding to a different probability distribution. They complete all three within-subject treatment variations, with the order being randomized. In each within- scenario, the sender is asked to decide whether to disclose or not disclose the information for each possible value; next the sender is asked to communicate his expectation about the renter's guess in case of not disclosure.
In the receiver/renter scenario, the general structure is the same. In each within- subject variation, the receiver is asked first to guess the quality score in case of non disclosure by the sender. Then, for each possible value, he has to communicate (i) the probability of disclosure by the sender and (ii) the renter's guess of the sender's expectation of the renter's guess in case the sender decides not to disclose the value.
At the end of both experiments we ask four questions of a CRT, labelled as CRT-2 by Thomson and Oppenheimer (2016) who proposed an alternative version to the well known CRT by Frederick (2005).
|
After
The experimental design involves two parallel sessions to assess the elicitation of beliefs of both senders and receivers. The two sessions are performed as separate online experiments, one with the senders (Experiment 1) and one with the receivers (Experiment 2). The samples are recruited using the Prolific platform.
The experiments have a symmetric structure. First we ask for actions and then we measure beliefs. There are two treatments variations directions. The between-subjects treatment variation is designed to control for potential behavioral distortions due to the knowledge of a specific distribution of potential rating scores. The second scenario presents a within-subjects treatment variation whose objective is to check, independently of the distribution, whether the magnitude of B, the set containing all the possible values, affects the voluntary disclosure of the player. Participants will earn an additional amount according to their performance in each round. They will play a total of 10 rounds. The order of within-subjects vatiations is fairly randomised.
To provide more details, in the sender/owner experiment, participants are initially assigned to one of three between-subject treatments, each corresponding to a different probability distribution. They complete all three within-subject treatment variations, with the order being randomized. In each within- scenario, the sender is asked to decide whether to disclose or not disclose the information for each possible value; next the sender is asked to communicate his expectation about the renter's guess in case of not disclosure.
In the receiver/renter scenario, the general structure is the same. In each within- subject variation, the receiver is asked first to guess the quality score in case of non disclosure by the sender. Then, for each possible value, he has to communicate (i) whether he expects that the sender is going to disclose or not the value and (ii) the renter's guess of the sender's expectation of the renter's guess in case the sender decides not to disclose the value.
At the end of both experiments we ask four questions of a CRT, labelled as CRT-2 by Thomson and Oppenheimer (2016) who proposed an alternative version to the well known CRT by Frederick (2005).
|