Principal Information Set Ambiguity and Agent Decision Quality

Last registered on September 28, 2026

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Principal Information Set Ambiguity and Agent Decision Quality

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0019136

Initial registration date

September 25, 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

September 28, 2026, 9:48 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

Bret Sheeley

Affiliation

University of Pittsburgh

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2026-10-01

End date

2026-12-31

Keywords

Behavior, Lab

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 people make decisions on behalf of someone else when they are uncertain about what information that person will use to judge the decision's quality.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Sheeley, Bret. 2026. "Principal Information Set Ambiguity and Agent Decision Quality." AEA RCT Registry. September 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19136-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2026-10-01

Intervention End Date

2026-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

The primary outcome is each participant's investment decisions. The Analysis Plan provides more detail.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

After each decision, participants report how strongly they prefer the investment they chose, using a continuous scale from weak to strong preference.

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

This is a between-participant, incentivized experiment. Participants are recruited through Prolific. To evaluate participants' decisions, we recruit two research assistants (doctoral or master's students) separately as research personnel, each dedicated to one of the study's two experimental conditions.

Each participant completes 20 independent investment decisions. On each decision, the participant chooses between two investment options. Each option's value is the sum of three types of points: points visible to both the participant and their research assistant evaluator, points visible only to the participant, and points that remain hidden from the participant throughout the study.

After completing all 20 decisions, the research assistant assigned to that condition evaluates each participant's choices and allocates bonus payments across a group of participants before the realized value of the chosen investments is revealed.

Data collection will proceed in two stages. Stage 1 consists of 20 participants, all in the Control condition. This first stage allows us to confirm the instrument produces sufficient variation in the primary outcome before proceeding. If a pre-specified criterion is met, data collection continues to Stage 2, consisting of 140 additional participants randomly assigned to a condition, and the initial observations are retained. If not met, collection stops, the instrument is revised, and an amended or new registration is filed disclosing the initial sample and all resulting changes. The Analysis Plan specifies the criterion.

Experimental Design Details

Not available

Randomization Method

Stage 1 participants are deliberately assigned to the Control condition and are not randomized (see attached Analysis Plan for the two-stage continuation rule).

Beginning in Stage 2, the experimental software (oTree) randomly assigns each newly recruited participant to the Control or Focal condition, using randomization with an allocation ratio calibrated to reach a final balanced sample of 80 participants per condition.

Randomization Unit

The unit of randomization is the individual participant. Participants are batched into groups of four that share a single research assistant evaluator for bonus-allocation purposes only. This batching is not the unit of random assignment; we do not analyze group-level outcomes, and the research assistant's allocation decisions are not a data source for any hypothesis test.

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Our design uses individual-level randomization rather than clustering. Per instructions below, see the "Planned Number of Observations" section.

Sample size: planned number of observations

160 participants total Stage 1: 20, all Control Stage 2: 140, randomly assigned Two (2) research assistants (doctoral or master's students) are research personnel, not participants, and are not counted here.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

80 Control + 80 Focal = 160 total.

Stage 1 supplies 20 non-randomized Control observations. Stage 2 supplies an additional 140 participants assigned with allocation probability 3/7 Control, 4/7 Focal to reach a final balanced sample of 80 participants per condition.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB