Attention allocation

Last registered on October 07, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Attention allocation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014472
Initial registration date
September 26, 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
October 07, 2024, 7:03 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Goethe University Frankfurt

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Humboldt University
PI Affiliation
University of Würzburg
PI Affiliation
Frankfurt School

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-09-30
End date
2024-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We conduct an online experiment to investigate how individuals allocate attention across two tasks – a math task and a code entry task. We measure (i) whether individuals allocate their scarce attention optimally and (ii) whether they are sophisticated about the extent to which they do so.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Altmann, Steffen et al. 2024. "Attention allocation." AEA RCT Registry. October 07. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14472-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
A tool for individuals that improves their attention allocation.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-09-30
Intervention End Date
2024-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
- Attention spans, measured by the total number of seconds devoted to a task in a given round.
- Performance and payoff in the math task and code entry task in the different stages of the experiment
- Willingness to pay for information about optimal attention allocation
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
- Total payoff (sum of earnings for the two tasks).
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment aims to measure participants' ability to optimally allocate their cognitive resources across tasks and their sophistication about this ability. It consists of two parts and a post experimental questionnaire. In the first part (working stages 1-3) subjects work on two cognitively demanding tasks. Based on their performance in this part, we will estimate the optimal attention allocation across the two tasks. In part two, we elicit the willingness to pay of subjects to receive a tool that informs them on their individually recommended attention allocation and reminds them to switch tasks. Depending on the treatment, subjects afterwards either receive this tool or not and work on the two tasks again.
Experimental Design Details
The experiment consists of four stages and a post-experimental questionnaire, as described in more detail below.

Stage 1

- Participants play 8 rounds. In each round, they can solve up to 11 math tasks.
- Math tasks are summation exercises with increasing difficulty within a given round, starting from easy (e.g., 2+4) to difficult (e.g., 12+45+32+28)
- The duration of each round is 40 seconds.
- Participants receive 10 points for each correctly solved task.
- If they correctly solve all tasks in less than 40 seconds, they receive a bonus for finishing early (5 points for each remaining second)

Stage 2

- Participants play 8 rounds. In each round, they can solve up to 11 code entry tasks.
- For the code-entry task, participants need to memorize and enter numerical codes that are displayed on their screens.
- Within a given round, the difficulty of codes to be entered decreases, starting from difficult (7-digits) to easy (4-digits)
- The duration of each round is 40 seconds.
- Participants receive 10 points for each correctly solved task.
- If they correctly solve all tasks in less than 40 seconds, they receive a bonus for finishing early (5 points for each remaining second)

Stage 3

- Participants play 5 rounds, in which they can work on, both, the math task and the code entry tasks.
- The difficulties of the math and code entry task are identical to the setup in stage 1 and stage 2, respectively.
- Participants have 40 seconds per round to work on both tasks.
- Participants see one task at a time on their screen and can freely switch between the two tasks during the duration of each round.
- Participants receive 10 points for each correctly solved task.

Stage 4

- Based on participants’ performance in Stage 1 and Stage 2, we estimate for each subject the attention allocation that is expected to maximize their total payoff in a scenario where they work on both tasks.
- We elicit participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a tool that informs them on their individually recommended attention allocation and reminds them to switch tasks.
- We elicit WTP via a variant of the DOSE procedure for two different incentive levels.
- After the WTP elicitation, participants are randomly assigned to different treatments. Treatments vary whether participants face a high vs. low incentive level in Stage 4 and whether (i) participants are / are not exposed to the information tool, depending on their WTP, (ii) do not receive information regardless of their WTP, (iii) do receive information regardless of their WTP.
- After randomization into treatments, participants play 5 rounds, in which they can work on, both, the math task and the code entry tasks.
- Participants assigned to the HIGH incentive condition receive 12 points per correctly solved task, participants assigned to the LOW incentive condition receive 10 points per correctly solved task.

Post-experimental questionnaire:
- Participants fill out a short survey with questions on sociodemographic characteristics, subjective perceptions of the information tool from Stage 4 and a 6-item version of the cognitive reflection test.

All rounds of the experiment are paid out to subjects. Points are converted into GBP at an exchange rate of 400 points = 1 GPB. Subjects receive feedback on their earnings and the performance in the different stages only after the final round of the experiment.
Randomization Method
randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1200 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
1200 individuals (before applying sample restrictions). We will exclude the following individuals from our analysis: --- Restriction 1: participants who are completely passive (enter no answer) at least one round of Stage 1, 2 or 3. --- Restriction 2: the 5% of participants who spend the least time on the instructions for Stage 4 will be excluded. This sample restriction aims at ensuring that participants have understood the WTP elicitation. --- Restriction 3: participants whose responses to the WTP questions are inconsistent with the incentives of the experiment. In particular, we exclude participants that specify a WTP that can only be rationalized by the belief to earn more/less in the experiment than maximally/minimally possible according to the instructions when receiving the tool. --- Restriction 4: participants whose implied WTP is outside of the parameter range that we elicit in the experiment.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We aim at n=270 participants in each of the main treatment cells.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number

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