AEA RCT Registry

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Giving a Voice - Increasing Individual Self-Expression to Enhance Group Welfare and the Resilience to System Disbelief

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0014170

Initial registration date

August 15, 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

August 28, 2024, 1:36 PM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name

Mathilde Draeger

Affiliation

Otto-von-Guericke-Universität (OVGU) Magdeburg

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2024-09-10

End date

2025-02-27

Keywords

Behavior, Electoral, Governance, Lab, Welfare

Additional Keywords

JEL code(s)

C91, D70, D91, M54

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

Individuals in a group, who repeatedly experience that their group's policy selection system does not decide in their favor, often develop system disbelief. The notion that the system is not favorable for the group, i.e., system disbelief, may be detrimental to the performance and welfare of the group. It may affect group members’ psychological well-being and their willingness to provide work effort, make financial contributions, or participate in cooperative coordination. In this experimental study, I investigate whether giving individuals a voice, i.e., the opportunity to express and explain their preferences, mitigates the development of system disbelief when decisions are made by a dictator, a dictator observing AI based decisions or a dictator observing borda count based decisions. The study adds to the knowledge on the drivers of discontent with policy selection systems. It provides insights for managers and policymakers concerning the design of such selection systems, especially in respect to welfare and resilience towards system disbelief.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Draeger, Mathilde . 2024. "Giving a Voice - Increasing Individual Self-Expression to Enhance Group Welfare and the Resilience to System Disbelief." AEA RCT Registry. August 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14170-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Subjects participate in a laboratory experiment and are randomly assigned to one of six treatments in a 3x2 experimental design. The treatments consist of three different systems of group policy selection (Dictator, Dictator AI, and Dictator Borda) combined with two communication modes (with and without voice). System discontent and system disbelief are elicited throughout a number of selection rounds. Additional items are self-reported by the subjects.

Intervention Start Date

2024-09-10

Intervention End Date

2025-02-27

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

System disbelief (group benefit perspective)
System discontent (individual benefit perspective)
Incentivized choice of communication mode

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

System disbelief and system discontent are measured via inverted self-reported items on a 7-point Likert scale after each round of group policy selection. Lower scores indicate higher levels of disbelief in the system’s benefit for the group (system disbelief) or discontent with the system from an individual perspective (system discontent).
The choice of communication mode is assesed before playing the final 5 rounds.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

1. Perceived System Characteristics:
• Fairness
• Comprehensibility
• Transparency
2. Individual Attitudes:
• Trust
• Risk Preference
3. Socio-demographic Factors

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Fairness, comprehensibility, transparency, trust and risk preferences are elicited using standard items of experimental economics (see e.g., Dohmen et al. 2011). Socio-demographic factors are elicited using standard procedures.

Experimental Design

Subjects participate in a laboratory experiment and are randomly assigned to one of six treatments in a 3x2 experimental design. The treatments consist of three different systems of group policy selection (Dictator, Dictator AI, and Dictator Borda) combined with two communication modes (with and without voice). System discontent and system disbelief are elicited throughout a number of selection rounds. Additional items are self-reported by the subjects.

Experimental Design Details

Not available

Randomization Method

Subjects are recruited electronically and randomly assigned to the treatments.

Randomization Unit

Individual subjects are assigned randomly to the treatments and to the independent observation groups in each treatment.

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Subjects' individual preference rankings are elicited non-clustered. In the group policy selection phase, subjects are clustered in groups of 5 in addition to one subject in the role of the dictator.

Sample size: planned number of observations

Sample size for all six treatments: 84 to 102 independent observation groups, i.e., 504 to 612 subjects. I plan 14 to 17 independent observation groups in each treatment, i.e., 84 to 102 subjects in each treatment.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

I plan 14 to 17 independent observation groups in each treatment, i.e., 84 to 102 subjects in each treatment.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Using G*Power with alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2 and medium effect sizes 1. Spearman’s rank correlation • Minimum sample size: 84 2. Mann-Whitney U Test: • Minimum total sample size: 134 (67 per group) 3. Random effects regression • Minimum sample size: 109 to 118 • Maximum number of predictors: 10

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

Gesellschaft für experimentelle Wirtschaftsforschung (GfeW)

IRB Approval Date

2024-08-15

IRB Approval Number

oFCWnQCM

Analysis Plan