Employee Reactions to Company Policy Change

Last registered on July 27, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Employee Reactions to Company Policy Change
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019083
Initial registration date
July 24, 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
July 27, 2026, 7:03 AM 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
Xiaomei (Grazia) Xiong
Affiliation
Utah State University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Theresa Libby
PI Affiliation
University of Central Florida
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Lan Guo
PI Affiliation
Wilfrid Laurier University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2026-07-21
End date
2028-07-31
Keywords
Behavior, Firms & Productivity
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study examines how organizational policy changes, specifically, the decision to either abandon or expand prior sustainability and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments, affect employees' ethical behavior, with reporting honesty as the primary outcome. Drawing on psychological contract theory, we hypothesize that employees interpret sustainability and DEI commitments as implicit organizational promises, and that abandoning such commitments triggers perceived breach, eroding trust, and increasing opportunistic behavior (e.g., misreporting of time, budget padding). Doubling down on commitments is expected to reinforce trust and ethical reciprocity. We further propose that the justification framing accompanying the policy change (business-case vs. moral) moderates these effects.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Guo, Lan , Theresa Libby and Xiaomei (Grazia) Xiong. 2026. "Employee Reactions to Company Policy Change." AEA RCT Registry. July 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19083-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The project consists of two online studies conducted through Prolific. In Study 1, participants with managerial experience make decisions about organizational initiatives and provide a justification for those decisions. In Study 2, working adults receive information based on decisions made by Study 1 participants and complete an incentivized reporting task. Participants’ decisions have real financial consequences for themselves and, where applicable, a matched participant.
Intervention Start Date
2026-07-27
Intervention End Date
2028-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The primary outcome is reporting honesty, measured as the difference between hours reported and hours actually worked. Higher values indicate greater over-reporting. We examine the effects of policy change, justification framing, and initiative type on this outcome.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Reporting dishonesty will be operationalized as the number of hours reported in excess of the participant’s actual hours worked: Misreporting=Reported Hours−Actual Hours.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
The secondary outcome is turnover intention, measured using participants’ responses to items assessing their intention to leave the organization. Higher values indicate stronger turnover intentions.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The project consists of two online studies conducted through Prolific using Qualtrics. Study 1 collects organizational policy decisions from participants with managerial experience. Study 2 presents these decisions to full-time working adults, who then complete an incentivized reporting task. Participants are assigned to conditions using a factorial experimental design.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Study 1 involves no experimental manipulation or random assignment. In Study 2, all employees who complete the allocation task will be randomly assigned at the individual level to either the DEI or sustainability condition, regardless of their allocation decisions. Their prior allocation decisions may be used as an analysis filter and/or included as potential moderators or covariates.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization in Study 2 is the individual participant. Participants are first randomly assigned to either the DEI or sustainability domain and then randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions within that domain. Study 1 involves no randomization; it surveys participants’ preferences and decisions.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Maximum of 500 participants for Study 2.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Maximum of 500 participants for Study 2;
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 - 60 participants per condition
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
In the absence of pilot data, we assume a medium effect size of Cohen’s f = 0.25. With 210 participants in a 2 × 2 between-participants design, a significance level of 0.05, and no clustering, the study has approximately 95% power to detect this effect.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Central Florida IRB
IRB Approval Date
2026-06-16
IRB Approval Number
STUDY00009326
Analysis Plan