Experiment E from "Neglect at Your Own Risk: Evidence on Risk-Taking Prevalence and Motives from the Field"

Last registered on July 27, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Experiment E from "Neglect at Your Own Risk: Evidence on Risk-Taking Prevalence and Motives from the Field"
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019247
Initial registration date
July 26, 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, 7:16 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

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Oberlin College

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-07-26
End date
2026-08-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Experiment E is part of a broader study of contingency neglect: the possibility that people make different risky choices when equivalent probabilities are represented as unconditional outcomes or nested conditional events. The broader study examines this mechanism in employee goal-reward choices and prescription-drug insurance; Experiment E extends it to low-probability homeowners insurance, where it may contribute to overinsurance. Participants choose among three insurance plans under one of three equivalent probability displays. We examine whether the displays change overinsurance choosing the Medium or Premium Plan rather than the Basic Plan and how post-choice probability estimates relate to choice.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bhargava, Saurabh and Timothy Hyde. 2026. "Experiment E from "Neglect at Your Own Risk: Evidence on Risk-Taking Prevalence and Motives from the Field"." AEA RCT Registry. July 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19247-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
All participants complete the same insurance education, comprehension item, incentive explanation, plan menu, post-choice probability questions, liquidity question, and incentivized random-outcome procedure. The three conditions vary only in how the same objective damage distribution is described immediately before plan choice.

1. Separate damage-outcome probabilities condition: 96% chance of no damage, 1% chance of minor damage costing $750, and 3% chance of severe damage costing at least $2,500.

2. Any-damage and conditional-severity condition: 4% chance of any damage of at least $750 and, conditional on any damage, a 75% chance that damage is severe and costs at least $2,500.

3. Any-damage and severe-damage probabilities condition: 4% chance of any damage of at least $750 and 3% chance of severe damage costing at least $2,500.

Participants choose among a Basic Plan ($616 premium, $2,000 deductible), Medium Plan ($900 premium, $400 deductible), and Premium Plan ($1,020 premium, $250 deductible). Their plan choice and a randomly selected damage outcome determine a bonus between $0.00 and $1.54. The regular participation payment is $1.00.
Intervention Start Date
2026-07-26
Intervention End Date
2026-08-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
An overinsurance indicator equal to 1 when the participant chooses the Medium or Premium Plan and 0 when the participant chooses the Basic Plan. The central comparison is the any-damage and conditional-severity condition versus the separate damage-outcome probabilities condition. The directional prediction is that the conditional-severity representation increases overinsurance.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This is an individually randomized online survey experiment. Participants see one condition and make one incentivized insurance-plan choice. The separate damage-outcome probabilities and any-damage plus conditional-severity conditions provide mathematically equivalent information about the same damage distribution. The any-damage plus severe-damage probabilities condition is a secondary diagnostic arm.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Qualtrics assigns participants using a 12-cell evenly presented randomizer: five cells assign the separate damage-outcome probabilities condition, five assign the any-damage and conditional-severity condition, and two assign the any-damage and severe-damage probabilities condition. The intended allocation is therefore 5:5:2.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
600 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
600 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The target analytic sample is 600 eligible completed participants after the preregistered exclusions: approximately 250 in the separate damage-outcome probabilities condition, 250 in the any-damage and conditional-severity condition, and 100 in the any-damage and severe-damage probabilities condition. Recruitment may continue until the target analytic sample is reached, subject to budget and platform availability.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Oberlin IRB
IRB Approval Date
2026-07-29
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Experiment_E_analysis_plan.docx

MD5: 3e242fe15fc94457be21b37361013eb1

SHA1: 9f8957ed33708e729a39425aab2755c2cfe34eae

Uploaded At: July 26, 2026