Are Reference Points Merely Lagged Beliefs Over Probabilities?
Last registered on June 14, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Are Reference Points Merely Lagged Beliefs Over Probabilities?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003061
Initial registration date
June 10, 2018
Last updated
June 14, 2018 11:39 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Cornell University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2016-03-28
End date
2017-02-23
Secondary IDs
Abstract
What explains the mixed evidence from laboratory tests of Kőszegi and Rabin’s (2006 and later) model of expectations-based reference-dependent preferences? We investigate one hypothesis: to become (behavior-affecting) reference points, probability beliefs have to sink in—being merely lagged, as the theory requires, is not sufficient. Past experiments with conflicting findings exogenously endowed subjects with beliefs that were equally lagged, but possibly unequally sunk-in. In four experiments, whose designs replicate past KR-nonsupporting experiments, we add new sink-in manipulations that endow individuals with additional, visual/physical probability impressions. Our findings are more KR-supporting in an endowment-effect setting but not in an effort-provision setting.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Heffetz, Ori. 2018. "Are Reference Points Merely Lagged Beliefs Over Probabilities?." AEA RCT Registry. June 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3061-1.0.
Former Citation
Heffetz, Ori. 2018. "Are Reference Points Merely Lagged Beliefs Over Probabilities?." AEA RCT Registry. June 14. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3061/history/30760.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
In four experiments, whose designs replicate past Koszegi-Rabin-nonsupporting experiments, we add new sink-in manipulations that endow individuals with additional, visual/physical probability impressions.
Intervention Start Date
2016-03-28
Intervention End Date
2017-02-23
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Endowment effect: proportion, diff in proportion, and diff-in-diff in proportion of mug choosers.
Effort provision: mean, diff, and diff-in-diff of acquired earnings.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Endowment effect: based on Heffetz and List (JEEA 2014) Experiment 2 More Endowment arm, with added manipulations of sink-in.
Effort provision: based on Gneezy, Goette, Sprenger and Zimmermann (JEEA 2017), with added manipulations of sink-in.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Endowment effect: Endowment treatment (mug or pen) by coin flip; within each room, Expectations×Demonstration treatments were preassigned to alternating cubicles (unbeknown to participants).
Effort provision: assignment to treatments by computer randomization (permutations of single-subject sessions).
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
(Randomization at the individual level.)
Sample size: planned number of observations
Endowment effect: as many subjects as would enroll in pre-scheduled sessions, at least 25 per cell. Effort provision: 120 + 120.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Endowment effect: 26-42 (Study 1), 48-58 (Study 2).
Effort provision: 31-34 (Study 3), 60-60 (Study 4).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers