A Theory Based Analysis of Path Dependency (Part 2)

This RCT build on a previous RCT (AEARCTR-0013625), testing two additional hypotheses, using two additional treatment arms.
Experiment Overview
This experiment builds on findings from a previous randomized controlled trial (AEARCTR-0013625) and is structured to investigate the likelihood of selecting the sub-optimal path in path-dependent decisions under the influence of either optimistic or pessimistic awareness of unknown future states. We will explore how these perspectives influence managerial decision-making without explicitly informing participants about path dependency. The participants, chosen from a pool of managers and balanced for gender, will be recruited via Prolific and the experiment will be conducted on the IMSL website (imsl.unibocconi.it). We aim to enroll 750 participants.
Procedure
Participants will begin with a welcome page, followed by a baseline survey to gather control variables such as age, gender, education level, field of education, industry, job function, total experience, and managerial experience. Based on their survey responses, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups, ensuring that the experiment starts with groups of 8 participants at a time and maintains an equal distribution of STEM and Non-STEM participants.
Experiment Flow
Introduction Video: A video will introduce the participants to a historical decision-making scenario involving a simplified version of Christopher Latham Sholes’ typewriter development. The video will present Sholes’ challenges without focusing on the path dependency aspects.
Scenario Presentation: After the video, participants will be asked to choose between two hypothetical keyboard layouts based on:
• Jamming Resistance (0 to 10): How well the layout prevents jamming.
• Typing Speed (0 to 10): How fast typists can type assuming no jamming occurs.
The two layouts will be:
• Layout A: High jamming resistance but low typing speed.
• Layout B: Low jamming resistance but high typing speed.
Group Treatments: Participants will be divided into two groups, each receiving different information after the video, before making their layout selection:
Pessimistic Unknown Group:
• Intervention: Participants in this group will be informed about Sholes' recognition of his limited knowledge of future events and his pessimistic outlook on unforeseen developments such as major competitors.
• Objective: To assess how a pessimistic view of future uncertainties impacts decision-making in a non-path-dependent context.
Optimistic Unknown Group:
• Intervention: Similar to the Pessimistic Unknown Group, but participants will be informed about Sholes’ optimistic expectations about future developments, highlighting the potential positive outcomes of unknown future states.
• Objective: To evaluate how an optimistic perspective on future uncertainties influences decision-making in a non-path-dependent context.
This experiment design allows us to examine the effects of different emotional outlooks on future uncertainties in decision-making and the propensity to make sub-optimal choices.

2024-06-17

2024-06-18

The key outcome is the choice of the layout by participants:
Layout 1: Scores 10 in jamming resistance but 0 in typing speed. (This is assigned a value of 0)
Layout 2: Balanced with scores of 3 in both criteria. (This is assigned a value of 1)
Layout 3: Scores 0 in jamming resistance but 10 in typing speed. (This is assigned a value of 2)

This outcome variable measures the optimality of the selected path, with the first layout which if selected would be a least optimal path in the future being assigned a value of 0, all the way to layout three which if selected would be the most optimal path in the future assigned a value of 2.

Time taken to select a layout

The time each participant takes to select a keyboard layout might be affected by the treatment, which points towards a higher cognitive cost when the participant is made aware of path dependency, and the unknown.

The engagement entails participation in an online experiment on the IMSL website (imsl.unibocconi.it/scenario) distributed through Prolific. Participants will be first introduced to the survey on the first page in two simple sentences, making them aware of the context of the experiment and the end goal which is “the optimal keyboard layout for his Type Writer machine”. They are then asked to fill in a short baseline survey with 8 questions on demographic information. The participants are then asked to watch a short video on the invention of the Type Writer Machine by Christopher Latham Sholes and are then asked to select a keyboard layout based on the available information.

There will be 2 arms in the experiment, differing on the information they receive at the end of the video, and before the layout selection, and a control group with observations that have already been collected in a previous RCT (AEARCTR-0013625)
The control group will receive the essential information needed to make a decision about the layout. This group and its observations have already been gathered in a previous RCT (AEARCTR-0013625)
The Optimistic Unknown group will be made aware of unforeseen contingencies and that Sholes is Optimistic about them, without an explicit awareness of path dependency.
The Pessimistic Unknown group will be made aware of unforeseen contingencies and that Sholes is Pessimistic about them, without an explicit awareness of path dependency.

Finally, they are thanked for their participation, explicitly debriefed on the experiment, and redirected back to Prolific. This activity is expected to last 5 minutes in total.

The engagement entails participation in an online experiment on the IMSL website (imsl.unibocconi.it/scenario) distributed through Prolific. Participants will be first introduced to the survey on the first page in two simple sentences, making them aware of the context of the experiment and the end goal which is “the optimal keyboard layout for his Type Writer machine”. They are then asked to fill in a short baseline survey with 8 questions on demographic information. The participants are then asked to watch a short video on the invention of the Type Writer Machine by Christopher Latham Sholes and are then asked to select a keyboard layout based on the available information.

There will be 2 arms in the experiment, differing on the information they receive at the end of the video, and before the layout selection, and a control group with observations that have already been collected in a previous RCT (AEARCTR-0013625)
The control group will receive the essential information needed to make a decision about the layout. This group and its observations have already been gathered in a previous RCT (AEARCTR-0013625)
The Optimistic Unknown group will be made aware of unforeseen contingencies and that Sholes is Optimistic about them, without an explicit awareness of path dependency.
The Pessimistic Unknown group will be made aware of unforeseen contingencies and that Sholes is Pessimistic about them, without an explicit awareness of path dependency.

Finally, they are thanked for their participation, explicitly debriefed on the experiment, and redirected back to Prolific. This activity is expected to last 5 minutes in total.

The experimental design is a “treatment within treatment”.
In the first phase of the experiment, we collect information about participants' educational backgrounds and categorize them into STEM and non-STEM groups. We then create 4 groups based on the intersection of these two categories (STEM vs. non-STEM) with the two additional experimental arms. Each participant is assigned to the group with the lowest number of active and finished participants. This assignment is determined by:
1. The number of participants who have already finished the experiment in that group.
2. The number of participants currently active in the experiment.
If two groups have the same number of active and finished participants, the participant will be assigned to the group with the fewer finished participants. If both groups also have the same number of finished participants, the allocation will be done randomly.
To ensure a balanced number of participants in each group and to manage the flow of the experiment, we limit the number of participants who can enter the experimental platform at the same time to 12. This helps prevent an imbalance at the end of the experiment caused by participants who start but do not finish the experiment.

Individual

No

0. We do not use clusters

750 Managers from the US and the UK, contacted though Prolific, and with equal share of men and women.

We expect roughly 375 participants in each arm

Actual power = 0.8 Effect size d = 0.2