Costly Information Revealed by Beliefs: A More Direct Test of Rational Inattention Models

Last registered on May 02, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Costly Information Revealed by Beliefs: A More Direct Test of Rational Inattention Models
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015667
Initial registration date
April 21, 2025

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
May 02, 2025, 5:49 AM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Jason Tayawa
Affiliation
UNSW
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Suha Kim
PI Affiliation
Ohio State University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Hyeonggyun Ko
PI Affiliation
Ohio State University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-04-15
End date
2027-05-31
Keywords
Behavior, Lab
Additional Keywords
Inattention, Beliefs
JEL code(s)
C91, D81, D83, D91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We design an experiment to document the validity of rational inattention models. Our design evaluates these models in direct (choosing intended posteriors) and natural (choosing information structures) frames. The former frame implements a decision variable closest to the model’s primitives, while the latter is more natural for experimental settings. By observing the acquired information in either frame, we can determine which class of rational inattention models aligns with the decision-making processes in the lab. These frames provide insights into the validity of these classes in rational inattention models, which are often tested solely based on choice data without observing the chosen level of informativeness. Assessing the consistency of their behavior between the two frames allows us to know whether it is without loss of generality that experimental designs may adopt an indirect yet natural decision variable and still make use of models that are ultimately defined on random posterior distributions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Kim, Suha, Hyeonggyun Ko and Jason Tayawa. 2025. "Costly Information Revealed by Beliefs: A More Direct Test of Rational Inattention Models." AEA RCT Registry. May 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15667-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The design varies several variables regarding the decision problem of the subject. Each subject is invited to participate in three sessions to do 168 round of a simple guessing task where the guess whether or not the randomly chosen urn for a given round contains a hexagon. Subjects are allowed to gather information about the chosen urn by taking out polygons from the chosen urn. We ask how much information they want to gather, and we vary the frame regarding this question between the three sessions. Within a session, we vary the reward for guessing the chosen urn across the rounds; and we also vary the probability the chosen urn has a hexagon across the rounds. Two rounds are randomly chosen for payment at the end of each session. Please refer to the succeeding research design and study procedures for the details and purpose of variations.

We use different frames and provide more information in succeeding treatments to observe changes in the intended posterior distributions.
Intervention Start Date
2025-04-22
Intervention End Date
2027-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Random Posterior Distribution: the possible set of beliefs and their corresponding probability over the state space. Elicited as the intended probability that their guess would be correct.

Information Structure: a collection of conditional probabilities over the signal space given the state. Elicited as the number of polygons to be drawn from the unknown urn.

Guess: the subject's guess given their realized signal.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The design varies several variables regarding the decision problem of the subject. Each subject is invited to participate in three sessions to do 168 round of a simple guessing task where the guess whether or not the randomly chosen urn for a given round contains a hexagon. Subjects are allowed to gather information about the chosen urn by taking out polygons from the chosen urn. We ask how much information they want to gather, and we vary the frame regarding this question between the three sessions. Within a session, we vary the reward for guessing the chosen urn across the rounds; and we also vary the probability the chosen urn has a hexagon across the rounds. Two rounds are randomly chosen for payment at the end of each session. Please refer to the succeeding research design and study procedures for the details and purpose of variations.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
100 university students
Sample size: planned number of observations
50400 decision rounds from 100 university students over three session
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 university students invited for three sessions
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Using data from Ko, Mahmood, Tayawa (2025, under review), we calculate several hypothesized coefficients for the effect of the reward level and prior on the chosen level of informativeness. For the effect of a change in reward, the coefficients are 0.1140, 0.1254, 0.1368, and 0.1482 percentage points for priors 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, and 0.65, respectively. For the effect of a change in the prior when the subject is represented as by a Prior-Invariant model, the coefficients are -0.0684, -0.1140, -0.1596, -0.2052 percentage points for reward levels 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9, respectively.
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Office of Responsible Research Practices, The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2025-04-07
IRB Approval Number
STUDY20250369
Analysis Plan