Back to History Current Version

Addressing the Enigma of the Gift: The Role of Social Relations in Gift Exchange

Last registered on October 04, 2016

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Addressing the Enigma of the Gift: The Role of Social Relations in Gift Exchange
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001651
Initial registration date
October 04, 2016

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 04, 2016, 3:54 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Queensland University

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2016-09-23
End date
2016-10-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We study whether the social relationship between the employer and the employee is an important determinant of gift exchange. Inspired by the anthropological literature, which claims that only monetary transfers that take place in a close and intimate social relationship can be considered gifts, we modify a standard gift-exchange field experiment by exogenously manipulating the degree of closeness and intimacy between the employer and employees. We aim to revisit existing field studies from this novel point of view to study whether the existence and degree of the employer-employee social relationship can organize the conflicting results in gift-exchange field studies.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Macera, Rosario and Vera L. Velde. 2016. "Addressing the Enigma of the Gift: The Role of Social Relations in Gift Exchange." AEA RCT Registry. October 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1651-1.0
Former Citation
Macera, Rosario and Vera L. Velde. 2016. "Addressing the Enigma of the Gift: The Role of Social Relations in Gift Exchange." AEA RCT Registry. October 04. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1651/history/11065
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2016-09-23
Intervention End Date
2016-10-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Workers’ productivity (total number of characters, total number of characters inputted, number of references, number of typos).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Following the standard field-experiment design in gift exchange, we recruit subjects to build the electronic library of a professor in a Chilean University. Subjects older than 18 from 13 different high-education institutions were recruited as workers for a 6-hour work of inputting academic cites on a software tracking their performance without their knowledge. The job consisted of an initial training session and four work shifts of 50 minutes each with three coffee breaks and a half-an-hour lunch. The task was advertised a one time job offering the market wage.

Workers were randomly assigned to one of six treatments varying whether a gift was granted or not and the existence and strength of the social relationship with the employer. In particular, we have a 3x2 design, with and without a gift and three different levels of social relation: No-Social relation, Weak-Social relation and Strong-Social relation.
Experimental Design Details
To understand and build the social relation between the parties, we follow the anthropological and psychological literatures. Since Mauss (1954), anthropologists have claimed that recipients will not interpret all monetary transfers as a gift. For a monetary transfer to be perceived as gift, it must be the case that the social relation between the parties is close and intimate. For a working definition of closeness and intimacy, we follow the psychological model by Reis and Shaver (1988), defining intimacy as a process that ``starts when a person expresses personal feelings or information to another […] to what the listener responds supportively and empathetically”. Based on this idea, we create a strict protocol that tightly controls the interaction between the professor commissioning the electronic library and the workers. The No-Social relation treatment replicates the standard gift-exchange design were the employer (in this case the professor) commissioning the work is not present in any moment but his/her name is mentioned at the moment the gift is granted. In the Weak-Social relation the professor is present at the start of the training period and limits the interaction to subjects to being introduced to workers by the RA conducting the training. In the Strong-Social relation the employer builds a social relationship with the workers by engaging in conversation with them following a protocol tailored by Reis and Shaver (1988)’s definition of intimacy. The protocol was carefully designed to avoid workers making inferences about their productivity from their interaction with the professor. The employer-employee interaction takes place in the first and second work shifts, the latter taking place half an hour before the research assistant grants the gift in the Gift treatments.

Because social relationships are the core of this paper null hypothesis, research assistants were not assigned by rooms, but rather by task, in order to make sure that all other (potentially relevant) social relationships are held constant across treatments.

Once all the data is collected, we will contact subjects by email for them to participate in a survey measuring their satisfaction with the task, payment and gift (if correspond), their level of perceived closeness to the employer (following the closeness measures validated in Gatcher, Starmer and Tufano (2015)) and their social preferences.
Randomization Method
Randomization at the time of recruitment. As interested students contacted the research assistant in charge of recruiting, they were randomly offered two possibles dates to work, each with two possible time schedules. We did not randomly assign people to a give date and time as that affects the external validity of the study.
Randomization Unit
Worker level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
13
Sample size: planned number of observations
Around 200-250 workers (actual number will depend on the amount of no shows).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
40 to 50 workers by each treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
There is not similar study to make power calculations.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
IRB Approval Date
2016-06-08
IRB Approval Number
160220002

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