Misguided Inference and Asymmetric Correction

Last registered on August 24, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Misguided Inference and Asymmetric Correction
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019173
Initial registration date
August 18, 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
August 24, 2026, 9:14 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Christoph Drobner
Affiliation
Central European University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Yesim Orhun
PI Affiliation
University of Michigan
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-08-01
End date
2027-12-31
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
Overconfidence, Underconfidence, Misguided Inference
JEL code(s)
C91, D83, D84
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study investigates how overconfidence and underconfidence about own ability shape inferences about the economic environment when outcomes depend on both ability and the environment. We focus on a setting where individuals can switch between environments. We test the hypothesis that overconfident individuals are more likely than underconfident individuals to select environments they perceive as more ability-contingent, and that this selection generates asymmetric belief correction (i.e., overconfident participants correct their biases more than underconfident participants do).
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Drobner, Christoph and Yesim Orhun. 2026. "Misguided Inference and Asymmetric Correction." AEA RCT Registry. August 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19173-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2026-08-01
Intervention End Date
2027-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Whether the participant chooses the manager they believe is more likely to be the Performance Manager.
2. Reduction in the absolute bias of the participant's belief about their own performance between rounds 1 and 2.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants complete a two-stage online experiment. In Stage 1, they take a 12-question logic quiz of randomly assigned difficulty and report an incentivized belief about how their performance on six shared questions compares to a reference pool of 100 earlier participants. In Stage 2, over two rounds, one of two managers generates 50 paid tokens per round. One manager pays a green token when the participant beats a randomly drawn member of the reference pool; the other pays green at a fixed rate that is disclosed to participants as a numerical probability. By design this rate equals the participant's own performance rate, so the two managers produce statistically identical token streams. After each round, participants report incentivized beliefs about their own performance and about which manager they face. A manager is randomly assigned before round 1. After round 1, all participants state whether they want to stay or switch; for half, randomly assigned, this choice is implemented (active-choice treatment), and for the other half the round-2 manager is randomly assigned (control). Further details are provided in the pre-analysis plan.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is conducted by computer at the individual-participant level. Quiz difficulty (Easy vs. Difficult) is block randomized within strata defined by the participant's score on the six shared quiz questions, which are answered before difficulty is assigned, crossed with gender. The manager-assignment regime (active-choice vs. control) is block randomized after the round-1 belief reports, within strata defined by round-1 performance-belief bias, whether the participant updated their performance belief in round 1, gender, and errors on the repeat-comprehension check. Order and placement features are independently randomized. Further details are provided in the pre-analysis plan.
Randomization Unit
Individual participant.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2,000 individual participants (no clustering).
Sample size: planned number of observations
2,000 participants who complete the entire experiment.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
2,000 participants total. Quiz difficulty: approximately 1,000 Easy, approximately 1,000 Difficult. Manager-assignment regime: 1,000 active-choice, 1,000 control.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Misguided Learning
IRB Approval Date
2026-08-17
IRB Approval Number
HUM00299131
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

PAP_DO.pdf

MD5: ea1b6689d477a5248cc2b1e7aabda336

SHA1: 13d7c78fd20a7791f20b871b673e44b3effa97b6

Uploaded At: August 18, 2026