Once a Competitor, Always a Competitor?

Last registered on June 23, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Once a Competitor, Always a Competitor?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016242
Initial registration date
June 20, 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
June 23, 2025, 2:55 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
Adelson Teh
Affiliation
Cornell University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-06-23
End date
2100-12-31
Keywords
Behavior, Firms & Productivity, Lab, Labor
Additional Keywords
Social Preferences, Identity
JEL code(s)
D90, D91, J01, J33, M50, M52
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Not suitable to reveal to public before trial/study is over. Please see pre-analysis plan.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Teh, Adelson. 2025. "Once a Competitor, Always a Competitor?." AEA RCT Registry. June 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16242-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Not suitable to reveal to public before trial/study is over. Please see pre-analysis plan.
Intervention Start Date
2025-06-23
Intervention End Date
2100-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The outcome variables will be the behaviour of participants and their perceptions of how others will behave in the economic games that they will play. Details are not suitable to be made public before the trial/study is over -- please refer to pre-analysis plan.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In this study, participants will have to go through a number of different scenarios. These scenarios might require them to complete some tasks or to make some decisions. Their final payment will depend on their actions and decisions in these scenarios. Details are not suitable to be made public before the trial/study is over -- please refer to pre-analysis plan.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomisation will be done on Prolific's end -- participants will be recruited into the study (by Prolific) but they will not know which treatment group they will be in before starting/agreeing to be in the study.
Randomization Unit
Randomisation is done at the individual level and is the same as above.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
750 participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
750 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
250 in each of the three treatment groups
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Note: All power calculations in this section used a significance of 0.05, a power of 0.8 and standard deviations from a prior pilot (N = 50), and are conducted using STATA. The minimum detectable effect-sizes reported are for two-sample t-tests. - Difference of 5.7 points between treatment groups in Dictator Game - Difference of 6.6 points between treatment groups in Dictator Game (perception) - Difference of 6.3 points between treatment groups in Other-Other Allocation Game - Difference of 6.8 points between treatment groups in Other-Other Allocation Game (perception) - Difference of 0.13 (likelihood) between treatment groups in Joy-of-Destruction Game - Difference of 1.0 (11-point Likert Scale) between treatment groups in Joy-of-Destruction Game (perception) - Difference of 0.13 (likelihood) between treatment groups in Joy-of-Destruction Game - Difference of 0.8 (11-point Likert Scale) between treatment groups in Joy-of-Destruction Game (perception) - Difference of 0.46 points (11-point scale) between treatment groups in survey-measure of zero-sum thinking
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Cornell University Office of Research Integrity and Assurance
IRB Approval Date
2025-05-01
IRB Approval Number
IRB0149668
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information