Back to History Current Version

Experimentally examining multiple normative expectations in whistleblowing and the influence of social information interventions

Last registered on June 25, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Experimentally examining multiple normative expectations in whistleblowing and the influence of social information interventions
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013850
Initial registration date
June 20, 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
June 25, 2024, 10:49 AM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Sabrina Plaß
Affiliation
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Sabrina Schäfers
PI Affiliation
PI Name
Behnud Mir Djawadi
PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-06-28
End date
2024-08-15
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
whistleblowing; multiple normative expectations; appropriateness; believes; social information intervention
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Internal whistleblowing is often considered a trade-off between establishing fairness by stopping wrongdoing and reporting a colleague to whom one feels loyalty. Therefore, the whistleblowing decision may be influenced by multiple normative expectations that cannot be met simultaneously because a potential whistleblower might perceive that others find both behavioural options, whistleblowing and remaining silent, similarly (in-)appropriate. Hence, in our study, we measure normative expectations regarding both behavioural options (whistleblowing and remaining silent) and investigate how they (jointly) affect the whistleblowing decision. Based thereon, we design social information interventions to examine if/how communicating normative expectations about the appropriateness of both behaviours (whistleblowing and remaining silent) compared to communicating just one increases whistleblowing behaviour. We investigate this by means of an incentivized experiment (basic experiment and three treatments) that we conduct on the platform Prolific with real employees.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mir Djawadi, Behnud, Sabrina Plaß and Sabrina Schäfers. 2024. "Experimentally examining multiple normative expectations in whistleblowing and the influence of social information interventions." AEA RCT Registry. June 25. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13850-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-06-28
Intervention End Date
2024-08-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
whistleblowing behaviour
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
To investigate these questions, we design an incentivized experiment which we conduct on the platform Prolific with subjects from the UK that currently work in an organization, thus are real employees. In the experiment, two randomly matched subjects form a team of two and collaborate on a real-effort task to receive income. After two rounds of the task, we introduce a situation in which subjects have to decide whether to commit a wrongdoing and whether to react by whistleblowing. Specifically, one team member (Player A) can take away money earmarked for a charity. The other team member (Player B) can react to Player A’s (possible) embezzlement by either remaining silent about it or by blowing the whistle. If Player B remains silent, Player A increases their payoff by the amount withheld from the charity, while Player B’s earnings stay untouched. In the case of whistleblowing, the charity gets the full donation, but both Players A and B get their payoffs reduced (because of punishment and whistleblowing costs).
Before subjects take their decisions, we elicit participants personal normative beliefs and normative expectations regarding both behavioural options they have (whistleblowing and remaining silent).
Lastly, we include the possibility of social sanctions as subjects can be excluded from an additional team task due to their action in the wrongdoing/whistleblowing situation in a second part of the experiment.
In a Baseline Treatment, the experiment is conducted as explained above. Then, we have three treatments in which we implement different social norm interventions. The information communicated in these social norm interventions is based on the elicitation of personal normative beliefs in the Baseline Treatment. Participants receive the information before they take the decision whether to blow the whistle or to remain silent.
Particularly, in Treatment 1 “Whistleblowing Norm”, we present participants the information that the majority of other participants in the same experiment personally considered whistleblowing to be appropriate in the situation (based on previous research we expect to find this in the Baseline Treatment).
In Treatment 2 “Silent Norm”, we present participants the information that the majority of other participants in the same experiment personally considered remaining silent to be inappropriate in the situation (again, based on previous research we expect to find this in the Baseline Treatment).
In Treatment 3 “Whistleblowing & Silent Norm”, we present participants the information that the majority of other participants in the same experiment personally considered whistleblowing to be appropriate and remaining silent to be inappropriate. Thus, we provide participants with both information used in Treatments 1 and 2.
We will conduct the experiment with 100 participants per treatment, of which 50 will be in the role of Player B (i.e., in the role of potential whistleblowers). Every participant will only be able to participate in one of the treatments.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
ranzomization by computer
Randomization Unit
Individual subjects will be part of one of the four different experimental treatments
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
We will run 4 treatments with each roughly 100 subjects
Sample size: planned number of observations
We will run 4 treatments with each roughly 100 subjects
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We will run 4 treatments with each roughly 100 subjects
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethik-Kommission der Universität Paderborn
IRB Approval Date
2024-06-17
IRB Approval Number
22/2024
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Preregistration_V2.docx

MD5: cb518899e5cf78cd614fac97dd6fb288

SHA1: ee05789a55a79948fac9d9c6adb5f7885e9f14ff

Uploaded At: June 20, 2024

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials