Efficient Private Takings
Last registered on October 27, 2016

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Efficient Private Takings
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001714
Initial registration date
October 27, 2016
Last updated
October 27, 2016 5:03 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2016-11-15
End date
2017-01-15
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study examines the efficiency takings hypothesis in the Law and Economics literature. In our experiment we study how well people can solve this problem naturally using social norms such as trust and reciprocity.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Mayo, Robert and Kevin McCabe. 2016. "Efficient Private Takings." AEA RCT Registry. October 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1714-2.0.
Former Citation
Mayo, Robert, Kevin McCabe and Kevin McCabe. 2016. "Efficient Private Takings." AEA RCT Registry. October 27. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1714/history/11496.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2016-11-15
Intervention End Date
2017-01-15
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Amounts taken and amounts taken back.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Each experiment subject will be randomly and anonymously paired with another subject. One subject of each pair will be selected at random to be Participant 1; the other will be Participant 2. Subjects will learn whether they are Participant 1 or 2 prior to making any decisions. After assignment, Participant 2 receives $1. Participant 1 can take some or all of the $1 from Participant 2. Before Participant 1 receives this, it will be tripled by the experimenter. Once Participant 1 receives the tripled amount, Participant 2 can decide whether to take back some, all, or none of the tripled amount from the same person who took from them. The amount taken back by Participant 2 is not tripled again. A questionnaire will be given to mechanical turk participants only upon completion of the game or individually to a player who did not finish the game. Attached is the survey the participants will fill out. We are interested in improving the quality and outcome data of the experiment. We would like to understand the etiology of why subjects are not participating in the game. This questionnaire will improve the quality of the experiment, bring in more subjects, and help decrease the amount of “non-participants” through understanding why they are not participating.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Random number generator
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
1
Sample size: planned number of observations
At most 300 subjects.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Between 50 and 100 subjects per treatment level.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
George Mason University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2016-09-26
IRB Approval Number
902154-1
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers