Identifying the Most Efficient Training Method for the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) Mechanism

Last registered on October 27, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Identifying the Most Efficient Training Method for the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) Mechanism
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016956
Initial registration date
October 07, 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
October 27, 2025, 6:15 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
Seong-Gyu Park
Affiliation
Claremont Graduate University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-10-07
End date
2025-12-12
Keywords
Behavior, Lab
Additional Keywords
The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) Mechanism, Induced-value, Training
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) mechanism is a widely used method for eliciting individuals’ valuation of an item in an incentive-compatible manner. However, the literature has reported that participants often have low comprehension of the mechanism. I propose a study to identify the most efficient training method for improving comprehension of the BDM mechanism, comparing three potential approaches: quizzes, the titration-based BDM, and the use of a steep price distribution.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Park, Seong-Gyu. 2025. "Identifying the Most Efficient Training Method for the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) Mechanism." AEA RCT Registry. October 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16956-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention is training methods for the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) mechanism.

The treatments are listed in order from the least to the most costly to implement.

Control (Instructions; Flat-price): Participants receive BDM instructions. Without any additional training, they are asked to state their WTP for induced-value goods. The price of each good is randomly determined from a flat (uniform) distribution.

Treatment 1 (Steep-price): This treatment manipulates the price distribution from which prices are drawn. Instead of a flat (uniform) distribution, prices are randomly determined from a peaked distribution. This design increases the likelihood that participants recognize their mistakes when making suboptimal bids. The more often participants identify such mistakes, the more likely they are to make optimal bids in subsequent rounds.

Treatment 2 (Titration): In each round, participants must remain for at least one minute on a page that reminds them of the instructions. They are asked to imagine a scaled-up scenario and consider the consequences of different bids they might make. After spending time reflecting on the mechanism and their bidding strategies, they are given an opportunity to revise their bids.

Treatment 3 (Quiz): Participants complete a set of incentivized quizzes to test their understanding of the BDM mechanism. The quizzes include questions about the rules, consequences of different bids, and bidding strategies. Participants receive immediate feedback with correct answers.

Using the randomization tool provided in Qualtrics, participants are randomly assigned to either the control group or one of the three treatment groups.
Intervention (Hidden)
Information to clarify random assignments of participants

Using the randomization tool provided in Qualtrics, participants are randomly assigned to either the control group or one of the three treatment groups.
Intervention Start Date
2025-10-07
Intervention End Date
2025-10-10

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The proportion of optimal bid for induced-value goods over multiple rounds
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study aims to examine how fast the proportion of optimal bid for induced-value goods over multiple rounds could be improved depending on the training methods.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization tool provided in Qualtrics.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1
Sample size: planned number of observations
200 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 individuals for each treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Claremont Graduate University IRB
IRB Approval Date
2025-09-25
IRB Approval Number
5205
Analysis Plan

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