Agentic Marketing: Ads for Whom?

Last registered on April 29, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Agentic Marketing: Ads for Whom?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018404
Initial registration date
April 27, 2026

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
April 29, 2026, 3:53 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
Brian Jabarian
Affiliation
University of Chicago Booth Business School
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Alex Imas
PI Affiliation
University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Leonardo Bursztyn
PI Affiliation
University of Chicago, Kenneth C. Griffin Department of Economics
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-05-01
End date
2026-05-15
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
AI Agents; Marketing;
JEL code(s)
D91, C93, L15, D18
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We study whether common marketing techniques -- such as featured badges, default pre-selection, and information obstruction -- cause people to choose objectively worse options, and whether AI agents are similarly affected. Each participant makes 20 incentivized choices between pairs of simple lotteries, where one option strictly dominates the other. Half the choices use neutral formatting; the other half apply one of five marketing techniques to the dominated option. We recruit 200 participants on Prolific (US, English-speaking) and compare their choices with those of AI language models presented with identical stimuli. The primary outcome is whether the participant selects the dominated lottery. The primary specification tests whether marketing techniques increase dominated choices for humans relative to AI, using a within-subject design with pair and participant fixed effects.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bursztyn, Leonardo, Alex Imas and Brian Jabarian. 2026. "Agentic Marketing: Ads for Whom?." AEA RCT Registry. April 29. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18404-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Within-subject experiment. Each participant makes 20 incentivized binary lottery choices. Ten choices use neutral formatting (control). Ten choices apply one of five common marketing techniques to one option (salience, highlight, confirmshaming, preselection, obstruction). The marketing technique-to-pair assignment and the block order (control first vs. marketing first) are randomized per participant.
Intervention Start Date
2026-05-01
Intervention End Date
2026-05-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Dominated option chosen (binary: 0/1). Whether the participant selects the strictly dominated lottery on a given choice.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Within-subject design. 200 participants on Prolific (US, English-speaking). Each participant sees 10 lottery pairs twice: once under neutral control formatting and once with a marketing technique applied. Items are organized into two blocks (control block, marketing block), with the block order randomized across participants. Items within each block are randomized. Marketing technique-to-pair assignment is randomized per participant (2 pairs per technique, balanced). Payment: $3.00 base + one randomly selected lottery resolved for a real bonus ($0.00-$2.60).
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Computerized randomization within the oTree survey platform
Randomization Unit
Individual participant (block order randomized between participants; item order and technique-to-pair assignment randomized within participant).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 participants (not clustered)
Sample size: planned number of observations
4,000 lottery choices (200 participants x 20 choices each).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Within-subject: all 200 participants see both conditions (2,000 control observations, 2,000 marketing observations).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Chicago
IRB Approval Date
2026-04-24
IRB Approval Number
RB26-0700
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information