|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This research follows up on a previous study of the effect of the gambler's fallacy on bidding for taxi bookings among Singapore taxi drivers.
In the previous study, subjects were randomly assigned to three conditions---a control group, treatment 1 (placebo), and treatment 2 (tutorial). Subjects in treatment 1 (placebo) and treatment 2 (tutorial) were asked to compare the probabilities of pairs of sequences of five random coin tosses. In addition, treatment 2 (tutorial) subjects were taught that the probabilities of the two sequences are equal. The control group will not be asked the coin toss question.
Then, subjects in all three conditions were presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking which was randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they were presented a new booking 5 minutes away and asked to bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
The previous study found that the debiasing tutorial mitigated the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. However, owing to small sample size based on a pilot with unusually large effect size, the estimated effect was not significant at conventional levels.
Also, the previous study did not register an examination of the effect of the extent of gambler's fallacy beliefs on bidding for bookings. Based on comments from the behavioral economics community, this is an issue of first-order importance.
Accordingly, in the present study, the main analysis will focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy (as revealed by their answers to a revised coin toss question). The analysis will test the effect of a previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
The secondary analysis will examine the contingent effect of the debiasing tutorial on the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
|
After
This research follows up on a previous study of the effect of the gambler's fallacy on bidding for taxi bookings among Singapore taxi drivers.
In the previous study, subjects were randomly assigned to three conditions---a control group, treatment 1 (placebo), and treatment 2 (tutorial). Subjects in treatment 1 (placebo) and treatment 2 (tutorial) were asked to compare the probabilities of pairs of sequences of five random coin tosses. In addition, treatment 2 (tutorial) subjects were taught that the probabilities of the two sequences are equal. The control group was not asked the coin toss question.
Then, subjects in all three conditions were presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking which was randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they were presented a new booking 5 minutes away and asked to bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
The previous study found that the debiasing tutorial mitigated the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. However, owing to small sample size based on a pilot with unusually large effect size, the estimated effect was not significant at conventional levels.
Also, the previous study did not register an examination of the effect of the extent of gambler's fallacy beliefs on bidding for bookings. Based on comments from the behavioral economics community, this is an issue of first-order importance.
Accordingly, in the present study, the main analysis will focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy (as revealed by their answers to revised questions on coin tosses). The analysis will test the effect of a previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
The secondary analysis will examine the contingent effect of the debiasing tutorial on the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
July 01, 2024 01:15 PM
|
After
August 14, 2024 10:31 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Subjects will be randomly assigned in proportions 1:1 to two conditions---control group and treatment (tutorial) group. All subjects (both control and treatment groups) will be asked to predict the outcome of a computer generated sequence of 20 random coin tosses. In addition, treatment (tutorial) subjects will be taught that the probabilities of all sequences of 20 coin tosses are equal. The control group will not receive the tutorial.
Next, all subjects will be presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking and the outcome is randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they will be presented a request for a new booking 5 minutes away and must bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
|
After
Subjects will be randomly assigned in proportions 1:1 to two conditions---control group and treatment (tutorial) group. All subjects (both control and treatment groups) will be asked to perform (i) prediction tasks---predict the next outcome of a computer generated sequence of random coin tosses; and (ii) recognition tasks---say which outcome of a computer generated sequence of random coin tosses is more likely.
In addition, treatment (tutorial) subjects will be taught that the probabilities of all sequences of coin tosses are equal. The control group will not receive the tutorial.
Next, all subjects will be presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking and the outcome is randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they will be presented a request for a new booking 5 minutes away and must bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
This research follows up on an earlier study on the effect of the gambler's fallacy on bidding for taxi bookings among Singapore taxi drivers (https://osf.io/hjgq2).
In the previous study, subjects were randomly assigned to three conditions---a control group, treatment 1 (placebo), and treatment 2 (tutorial). Subjects in treatment 1 (placebo) and treatment 2 (tutorial) were asked to compare the probabilities of pairs of sequences of five random coin tosses. In addition, treatment 2 (tutorial) subjects were taught that the probabilities of the two sequences are equal. The control group will not be asked the coin toss question.
Next, subjects in all three conditions were presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking which was randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they were presented a new booking 5 minutes away and asked to bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
The previous study found that the debiasing tutorial mitigated the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. However, owing to small sample size based on a pilot with unusually large effect size, the estimated effect was not significant at conventional levels.
Also, the previous study did not register an examination of the effect of the extent of gambler's fallacy beliefs on bookings. Based on comments from the behavioral economics community, this is an issue of first-order importance and actually the more important question.
Like the previous study, the present study will recruit Singapore taxi drivers as subjects. By contrast with the previous study, the present study will apply just two conditions---control and treatment (tutorial). The main analysis will focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy (as revealed by their answers to a revised coin toss question). The analysis will test the effect of a previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. The secondary analysis will also focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy and examine the moderating effect of the debiasing tutorial on the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
The hypotheses to be tested:
Hypothesis 1 (Gambler's fallacy). If the driver believes in the gambler's fallacy and if their previous booking was cancelled, they will bid more aggressively on the next booking job.
Hypothesis 2 (Gambler's fallacy). If the driver believes in the gambler's fallacy and if their previous booking was cancelled, they will explain their bid as due to the next booking being less likely to be cancelled.
Hypothesis 3 (Tutorial). The sequence effect in Hypothesis 1 will be attenuated among drivers who are educated about the gambler's fallacy.
To conserve economic resources, this study will re-use the data collected in the previous study.
The main analysis (test of Hypothesis 1) will be a Poisson regression of the ETA bid on three explanatory variables---belief in the gambler's fallacy, previous booking cancelled, and their interaction---on the sample of subjects in the control condition. The coefficient of main interest is that of the interaction, belief in the gambler's fallacy x previous booking cancelled.
The secondary analysis (test of Hypothesis 3) will be a Poisson regression of the ETA bid on three explanatory variables---tutorial indicator, previous booking cancelled, and their interactions---on the sample of subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy. The coefficient of main interest is that of the interaction, previous booking cancelled x tutorial.
|
After
This research follows up on an earlier study on the effect of the gambler's fallacy on bidding for taxi bookings among Singapore taxi drivers (https://osf.io/hjgq2).
In the previous study, subjects were randomly assigned to three conditions---a control group, treatment 1 (placebo), and treatment 2 (tutorial). Subjects in treatment 1 (placebo) and treatment 2 (tutorial) were asked to compare the probabilities of pairs of sequences of five random coin tosses. In addition, treatment 2 (tutorial) subjects were taught that the probabilities of the two sequences are equal. The control group was not asked the coin toss question.
Next, subjects in all three conditions were presented a scenario in which the previous job was a booking which was randomly posed as either completed or cancelled. Then they were presented a new booking 5 minutes away and asked to bid an estimated time of arrival (2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes) for the booking.
The previous study found that the debiasing tutorial mitigated the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. However, owing to small sample size based on a pilot with unusually large effect size, the estimated effect was not significant at conventional levels.
Also, the previous study did not register an examination of the effect of the extent of gambler's fallacy beliefs on bookings. Based on comments from the behavioral economics community, this is an issue of first-order importance and actually the more important question.
Like the previous study, the present study will recruit Singapore taxi drivers as subjects. By contrast with the previous study, the present study will apply just two conditions---control and treatment (tutorial). The main analysis will focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy (as revealed by their answers to revised questions on the outcomes of coin tosses). The analysis will test the effect of a previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking. The secondary analysis will also focus on subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy and examine the moderating effect of the debiasing tutorial on the effect of previous cancellation on the ETA bid on the next booking.
The hypotheses to be tested:
Hypothesis 1 (Gambler's fallacy). If the driver believes in the gambler's fallacy and if their previous booking was cancelled, they will bid more aggressively on the next booking job.
Hypothesis 2 (Gambler's fallacy). If the driver believes in the gambler's fallacy and if their previous booking was cancelled, they will explain their bid as due to the next booking being less likely to be cancelled.
Hypothesis 3 (Tutorial). The sequence effect in Hypothesis 1 will be attenuated among drivers who are educated about the gambler's fallacy.
To conserve economic resources, this study will re-use the data collected in the previous study.
The main analysis (test of Hypothesis 1) will be a Poisson regression of the ETA bid on three explanatory variables---belief in the gambler's fallacy, previous booking cancelled, and their interaction---on the sample of subjects in the control condition. The coefficient of main interest is that of the interaction, belief in the gambler's fallacy x previous booking cancelled.
The secondary analysis (test of Hypothesis 3) will be a Poisson regression of the ETA bid on three explanatory variables---tutorial indicator, previous booking cancelled, and their interactions---on the sample of subjects who believe in the gambler's fallacy. The coefficient of main interest is that of the interaction, previous booking cancelled x tutorial.
|