x

We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
Coordination and Information Acquisition: An Experiment
Last registered on May 17, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Coordination and Information Acquisition: An Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004039
Initial registration date
April 18, 2019
Last updated
May 17, 2019 5:13 AM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Nazarbayev University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Lund University
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-05-01
End date
2019-10-01
Secondary IDs
Abstract
There are numerous instances where people can only achieve their goals by coordinating their actions. Examples range from friends choosing a place for an evening out, through traders on financial and foreign exchange markets, to protesters against a political regime. The resulting coordination game that is often used to model such situations has multiple equilibria under complete information. Yet, information is rarely complete and the structure of the game is rarely a common knowledge. Even if a trader knows the fundamental value of a stock he can never be sure that it is also known to other traders, and a citizen going to an anti-government march can only guess how many people will gather on the streets. Moreover, in many of those situations information is not exogenous to the decision, and agents can choose to learn about fundamentals.
This leads to the question of how information acquisition affects game equilibria, and ultimately the agents' behaviour. Morris and Yang (2016) argue that uniqueness of the equilibrium is tightly connected to the technology of information acquisition. They show that a coordination game has a unique equilibrium whenever it is sufficiently easier to distinguish states that are further apart than nearby ones. Our goal is to test their insight experimentally.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Goryunov, Maxim and Alexandros Rigos. 2019. "Coordination and Information Acquisition: An Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. May 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4039-2.0.
Former Citation
Goryunov, Maxim and Alexandros Rigos. 2019. "Coordination and Information Acquisition: An Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. May 17. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4039/history/46671.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2019-05-01
Intervention End Date
2019-10-01
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Probability of choosing the risky action in a coordination game conditional on the state of the world. The state of the world at which the probability of risky action exceeds 1/2.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Participants in the experiment are randomly matched into pairs to play a coordination game. Each of them has a choice of two actions: either participate (P) in the project or abstain (A). Abstention generates fixed payoff (riskless action). Payoff from participation (risky action) depends on the unknown state of the world and the other participant's choice. Treatment vary in the way in which participants are provided with information about the unknown, payoff-relevant state of the world. Specifically, in the Continuous Treatment (CT), information provision induces continuous probability of choice of the risky action. In the Discontinuous Treatment (DT), information provision allows for discontinuity in the choice probability of the risky action. The main interest is in the differences in behavior between CT and DT.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by a computer in the experimental laboratory
Randomization Unit
First, experiment participants are randomized into sessions. Secondly, within sessions, participants randomized into a specific treatment are randomly split into two groups, within which randomized pair matching takes place.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
28 groups
Sample size: planned number of observations
196 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
14 groups (98 participants) in each of the two treatments (Continuous and Discontinuous).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The sample size was choosen to have minimal detectable effect at 0.5 standard deviation of the threshold at which subjects choose risky action with probability more than 1/2. The estimates of the standard deviation of the treshold were taken from previous studies of coordination behavior.
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number