|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This study is a second wave of a previously conducted experiment in which we surveyed three sections of MFA students at LBS. The design and randomization procedures are unchanged; the second wave is slightly streamlined to reduce completion time.
In the first wave, we anticipated that a sample of roughly 300 students might provide limited statistical power. The results were directionally consistent with our hypotheses but only weakly significant (typically at the 10% level). We are therefore re-running the same experiment in a very similar population—MBA students at LBS—to increase the sample size and improve statistical precision.
Below is the abstract for the second wave of the experiment.
Participants complete two rounds of a forecasting task. Each round begins with a short case about a retail firm that is presented to students as fictional but adapted from a real public company: the financial statements and EPS history are real, while the firm’s name and any identifying details are withheld. After reading the case, participants report a prior EPS forecast and two relative-rank judgments—managerial talent of the CEO and the firm’s fundamentals—on a 0–100 scale relative to retail peers of similar size. The case embeds two independent manipulations: (i) CEO gender, randomized via first name and pronouns while all other text is held constant, and (ii) an information display consisting of noisy signals of the true EPS realization labeled as “experts’ forecasts,” accompanied by a single paragraph that contextualizes those signals; the signals are randomized to be optimistic or pessimistic in each round. Participants then provide posterior values for the same three outcomes.
|
After
This study is a second wave of a previously conducted experiment in which we surveyed three sections of MFA students at LBS. The design and randomization procedures are unchanged; the second wave is slightly streamlined to reduce completion time and includes fictitious companies instead of being based on real data.
In the first wave, we anticipated that a sample of roughly 300 students might provide limited statistical power. The results were directionally consistent with our hypotheses but only weakly significant (typically at the 10% level). We are therefore re-running the same experiment in a very similar population—MBA & MiM students at LBS—to increase the sample size and improve statistical precision.
Below is the abstract for the second wave of the experiment.
Participants complete two rounds of a forecasting task. Each round begins with a short case about a fictional retail firm whose EPS follows an AR(1) process (participants are informed about the process). After reading the case, participants report a prior EPS forecast and two relative-rank judgments—managerial talent of the CEO and the firm’s fundamentals—on a 0–100 scale relative to retail peers of similar size. The case embeds two independent manipulations: (i) CEO gender, randomized via first name and pronouns while all other text is held constant, and (ii) an information display consisting of noisy signals of the true EPS realization labeled as “experts’ forecasts,” accompanied by a single paragraph that contextualizes those signals; the signals are randomized to be optimistic or pessimistic in each round. Participants then provide posterior values for the same three outcomes.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
January 26, 2026
|
After
April 07, 2026
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
February 27, 2026
|
After
April 30, 2026
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
February 04, 2026 09:56 AM
|
After
April 06, 2026 10:33 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
January 26, 2026
|
After
April 07, 2026
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
February 27, 2026
|
After
April 30, 2026
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Participants complete two rounds of a forecasting task. Each round begins with a short case about a retail firm that is presented to students as fictional but adapted from a real public company: the financial statements and EPS history are real, while the firm’s name and any identifying details are withheld. After reading the case, participants report a prior EPS forecast (incentivized) and two relative-rank judgments—managerial talent of the CEO and the firm’s fundamentals—on a 0–100 scale relative to retail peers of similar size (not incentivized). Each participant is shown one male-named CEO and one female-named CEO across the two rounds. The case embeds two independent manipulations: (i) CEO gender, randomized via first name and pronouns while all other text is held constant, and (ii) an information display consisting of noisy signals of the true EPS realization labeled as “experts’ forecasts,” accompanied by a single paragraph that contextualizes those signals; the signals are randomized to be optimistic or pessimistic in each round. Participants then provide posterior values for the same three outcomes. Randomizations occur independently in every round.
|
After
Participants complete two rounds of a forecasting task. Each round begins with a short case about a fictional retail firm. After reading the case, participants report a prior EPS forecast (incentivized) and two relative-rank judgments—managerial talent of the CEO and the firm’s fundamentals—on a 0–100 scale relative to retail peers of similar size (not incentivized). Each participant is shown one male-named CEO and one female-named CEO across the two rounds. The case embeds two independent manipulations: (i) CEO gender, randomized via first name and pronouns while all other text is held constant, and (ii) an information display consisting of noisy signals of the true EPS realization labeled as “experts’ forecasts,” accompanied by a single paragraph that contextualizes those signals; the signals are randomized to be optimistic or pessimistic in each round. Participants then provide posterior values for the same three outcomes. Randomizations occur independently in every round.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
The experiment is conducted on a voluntary participation basis. Participants will be recruited by distributing the survey link through mailing lists of MBA and MiM students. Data collection will stop once 200 completed responses are reached. We target 200 participants as an optimistic upper bound on feasible recruitment.
|
After
The experiment is conducted on a voluntary participation basis. Participants will be recruited by distributing the survey link through mailing lists of MBA and MiM students. We target 300 participants as an optimistic upper bound on feasible recruitment.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
Each participants completes two exercises for a total of 400 participant x firm sample
|
After
Each participants completes two exercises for a total of 600 participant x firm sample
|