We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
Back to History Current Version
Social Information in Sequential Dictator Games - A Replication Study
Last registered on November 30, 2018


Trial Information
General Information
Social Information in Sequential Dictator Games - A Replication Study
Initial registration date
November 26, 2018
Last updated
November 30, 2018 10:16 AM EST
Primary Investigator
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Texas A&M University
PI Affiliation
Texas A&M University
PI Affiliation
Texas A&M University
PI Affiliation
Texas A&M University
Additional Trial Information
On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
This study is a replication of a previous study published in 1998. It is a dictator game conducted in 2 rounds. For the dictator game, people are paired and are provided some amount of money to divide among themselves. The dictator determines the allocation. In this experiment, the researchers wish to see the change in dictator allocations, if any, when social information is provided. The information of dictator allocation in the first round being the treatment social information (S1) for the second round.
In this experiment, the subjects are put into groups of 4. For each round, the dictator allocation is 40 tokens (USD 20). Dictator chooses P for herself and 40-P goes to the other non-dictator subject. A higher P implies more self-regarding behavior. All subjects choose P1 and fill out their choice forms. Irrelevant information acts as baseline control here which is the birthday of participant (S2). Experimenter facilitates information exchange on P1 or birthday. All subjects then choose P2. Bingo cage decides which sub-group (even or odd) is sellers/buyers and the order S1 and S2.
The hypotheses tested are, the Zero Social Influence Hypothesis - (Second Price Choice – First Price Choice) between Relevant and Irrelevant treatment groups is not different, differential Social Influence Hypothesis – absence of social payoff and dramatic Social Influence Hypothesis – difference between first choice and information received.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
ashraf, sruthi et al. 2018. "Social Information in Sequential Dictator Games - A Replication Study." AEA RCT Registry. November 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3607-1.0
Former Citation
ashraf, sruthi et al. 2018. "Social Information in Sequential Dictator Games - A Replication Study." AEA RCT Registry. November 30. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3607/history/38097
Experimental Details
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Information of previous round dictator allocation affects the current dictator allocation.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Our experimental design includes two main treatments. In both treatments, subjects first chose an initial dictator allocation with no information other than the instructions. The Irrelevant Information treatment serves as a baseline control, in which subjects receive socially irrelevant information between their two dictator decisions. In the Relevant Information treatment, each subject learns the first dictator allocation chosen by one other subject. Each subject then specifies a single second dictator allocation to another subject who is different from the subject affected by his initial dictator allocation. In the Irrelevant Information treatment, each subject in the group receives information on another subject's birth date ranging between 0 to 31 and makes the second choice thereafter.

Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
The subjects are allocated an index card randomly when they enter the lab. Then are allocated to groups of four randomly based on the number on the balls drawn using a bingo cage. The buyer and seller are decided based on bingo ball draws.
Randomization Unit
There will be groups of 4 for both treatment and control group. The subjects are assigned to groups randomly using bingo balls and bingo cage.
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
12 groups of 4
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
6 groups for treatment and 6 for control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Standard deviation = 0.56, p-value is 0.05. 23 subjects required for control. We have 24 subjects in control group.
Supporting Documents and Materials

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
IRB Name
Texas A&M University
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number