|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
February 21, 2019 04:10 AM
|
After
April 09, 2019 08:06 AM
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Our design encompasses two treatments (HardEasy and EasyHard). In both treatments, subjects work on Raven's Progressive Matrices which are commonly used to measure fluid intelligence. We split the matrices in two parts such that one part is easier (Easy) and another one is harder (Hard). Matrices in part Easy and part Hard do not repeat or overlap. All participants receive a show-up fee, but no additional payment for correct answers on the matrices.
Subjects are randomly assigned to one of the two treatments or the role of being Observer (2 subjects per session, one female and one male). In treatment HardEasy, subjects work on the Hard part in Stage 1 and the Easy part in Stage 2. In treatment EasyHard, subjects complete the two parts in the reverse order, i.e. they first work on the Easy part and then the Hard one. Stage 1 establishes a within-subject reference point with respect to performance on the matrices. Since subjects know that their answers on the matrices reflect a measure of their IQ, their performance feedback (rank) is expected to be image relevant. We calculate a subject's rank as a percentile compared to a predetermined reference group (university students who answered the same matrices in a previous experiment). In both treatments, subjects solve Part 1, observe their Rank 1 and report it privately to the two observers (who can verify the report). In Stage 2, participants do Part 2 of the quiz. For subjects in treatment EasyHard, Part 2 is more complicated than Part 1. Thus, we expect them to perform worse on average than in Part 1, such that on average their rank decreases. For subjects in treatment HardEasy, on the contrary, the average rank increases compared to Rank 1. Construction of Rank 2 is based on exactly the same matrices (part Hard and Easy) for all subjects, so we do not expect any absolute difference between Ranks 2 in treatments HardEasy and EasyHard. After Part 2 is completed, the own Ranks 1 and 2 are displayed privately to each subject, so that subjects see whether they performed better or worse than in Part 1. The only expected difference is their reference points, i.e. Rank 1. Then we suggest subjects to throw a dice twice privately and report the numbers they got. The first reported number is added to the number of correctly solved matrices of each person in the reference group, the second reported number to their own number of correctly solved matrices (a scope for lying). Observers know about the existence of a further task in Stage 2, but not the exact nature of the dice rolls. Once the reported dice rolls are added and the Overall Rank is updated, participants go to Observers again and report their final ranks privately.
We test the following hypothesis: subjects in treatment EasyHard (who on average experience a loss in social image since their ranking deteriorates from Part 1 to Part 2) lie more than subjects in treatment HardEasy (who on average experience a gain in social image since their ranking improves from Part 1 to Part 2). We compare the average reported difference in dice roll reports (average reported number to be added to own performance minus average reported number to be added to reference group's performance) from treatments HardEasy and EasyHard. If this difference is significantly higher in treatment EasyHard than in treatment HardEasy, this provides evidence for loss aversion in social image concerns because it implies that subjects who risk loosing social image are ready to lie more than those with social image gains.
|
After
Our design encompasses two treatments (HardEasy and EasyHard). In both treatments, subjects work on Raven's Progressive Matrices which are commonly used to measure fluid intelligence. We split the matrices in two parts such that one part is easier (Easy) and another one is harder (Hard). Matrices in part Easy and part Hard do not repeat or overlap. All participants receive a show-up fee, but no additional payment for correct answers on the matrices.
Subjects are randomly assigned to one of the two treatments or the role of being Observer (2 subjects per session, one female and one male). In treatment HardEasy, subjects work on the Hard part in Stage 1 and the Easy part in Stage 2. In treatment EasyHard, subjects complete the two parts in the reverse order, i.e. they first work on the Easy part and then the Hard one. Stage 1 establishes a within-subject reference point with respect to performance on the matrices. Since subjects know that their answers on the matrices reflect a measure of their IQ, their performance feedback (rank) is expected to be image relevant. We calculate a subject's rank as a percentile compared to a predetermined reference group (university students who answered the same matrices in a previous experiment). In both treatments, subjects solve Part 1, observe their Rank 1 and report it privately to the two observers (who can verify the report). In Stage 2, participants do Part 2 of the quiz. For subjects in treatment EasyHard, Part 2 is more complicated than Part 1. Thus, we expect them to perform worse on average than in Part 1, such that on average their rank decreases. For subjects in treatment HardEasy, on the contrary, the average rank increases compared to Rank 1. Construction of Rank 2 is based on exactly the same matrices (part Hard and Easy) for all subjects, so we do not expect any absolute difference between Ranks 2 in treatments HardEasy and EasyHard. After Part 2 is completed, the own Ranks 1 and 2 are displayed privately to each subject, so that subjects see whether they performed better or worse than in Part 1. The only expected difference is their reference points, i.e. Rank 1. Then we suggest subjects to throw a dice twice privately and report the numbers they got. The first reported number is added to the number of correctly solved matrices of each person in the reference group, the second reported number to their own number of correctly solved matrices (a scope for lying). Observers know about the existence of a further task in Stage 2, but not the exact nature of the dice rolls. Once the reported dice rolls are added and the Overall Rank is updated, participants go to Observers again and report their final ranks privately.
We test the following hypothesis: subjects in treatment EasyHard (who on average experience a loss in social image due to a worse Rank 2 than Rank 1) lie more than subjects in treatment HardEasy (who on average experience a gain in social image). The two treatments (HardEasy and EasyHard) differ only in the average reference points (Rank 1). Key outcomes are whether the individuals lie and to which extent, i.e. the average reported dice rolls for the reference group and oneself by treatment (HardEasy versus EasyHard). We investigate whether HardEasy and EasyHard subjects differ in the reported dice roll difference, conditional and unconditional on their individual reference points. In particular, we compare the average reported difference in dice roll reports (average reported number to be added to own performance minus average reported number to be added to reference group's performance) from treatments HardEasy and EasyHard. If this difference is significantly higher in treatment EasyHard than in treatment HardEasy, this provides evidence for loss aversion in social image concerns because it implies that subjects who risk losing social image are ready to lie more than those with social image gains. In several specifications, we additionally control for measures of subjects' risk aversion, loss aversion, social image concerns as well as various sociodemographic characteristics and their interactions with the main treatment variables.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
Approximately 168 observations for HardEasy and EasyHard treatments
(6 laboratory sessions with approximately 30 subjects each, 6x2 Observers are not part of the treatment conditions)
|
After
We have collected 166 observations for HardEasy and EasyHard treatments (6 laboratory sessions with 28 subjects each on average, 6x2 Observers are not part of the treatment conditions). We plan to collect approximately 168 more observations for HardEasy and EasyHard treatments (6 laboratory sessions with 30 subjects each on average, 6x2 Observers are not part of the treatment conditions) in order to test an additional hypothesis of loss aversion in social image concerns conditional on one's reference point.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
We aim at a balanced design in which about 50% of observations are assigned to treatment EasyHard and about 50% to treatment HardEasy, i.e. about 80 observations per treatment.
|
After
We aim at a balanced design in which about 50% of observations are assigned to treatment EasyHard and about 50% to treatment HardEasy.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
We define the key variable DiceDiff = DiceSubject – DiceSample, where DiceSubject is a reported dice roll for oneself (on a scale of 1 to 6), DiceSample is a reported dice roll for the reference group (on a scale of 1 to 6), and DiceDiff is a reported dice roll difference (on a scale -5 to 5, larger differences are more favorable for a subject).
|
After
We define the key variable DiceDiff = DiceSubject – DiceSample, where DiceSubject is a reported dice roll for oneself (on a scale of 1 to 6), DiceSample is a reported dice roll for the reference group (on a scale of 1 to 6), and DiceDiff is a reported dice roll difference (on a scale -5 to 5, larger differences are more favorable for a subject). We then regress DiceDiff on the treatment dummy as well as on the interaction term of the treatment dummy with Rank 1 (reference point) in order to investigate whether HardEasy and EasyHard subjects differ in the reported dice roll difference, conditional and unconditional on their individual reference points. According to power analyses based on the data collected so far (6 session conducted on 20.11.18-28.11.18, 166 obs), we will be able to detect an significant effect using a linear regression slope test, with 77 observations per treatment (144 total) with a power of 80%.
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
loss aversion, social image concerns
|
After
loss aversion, social image concerns, lying behavior
|