x

We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
Extended Asymmetric Dominance: An Experimental Study
Last registered on July 01, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Extended Asymmetric Dominance: An Experimental Study
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004058
Initial registration date
March 31, 2019
Last updated
July 01, 2019 7:04 AM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Haifa
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-06-26
End date
2019-07-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study is meant to examine the nature of the asymmetric dominance effect. To reach this goal we extend the standard experimental framework of asymmetric dominance by introducing subjects with multiple decoy options in different locations. As a side effect we may be able to hint as to which type of economic models is more fitting to account for this behavioral phenomenon.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Maltz, Amnon. 2019. "Extended Asymmetric Dominance: An Experimental Study." AEA RCT Registry. July 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4058-3.0.
Former Citation
Maltz, Amnon. 2019. "Extended Asymmetric Dominance: An Experimental Study." AEA RCT Registry. July 01. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4058/history/49042.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2019-06-26
Intervention End Date
2019-07-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Choice distributions across different choice sets.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Subjects will make choices in 3-different choice contexts. In each context they will face two main options with different decoys.
Experimental Design Details
Overview: Subjects make choices in 3 different contexts. In each context they encounter 3 or 5 options from which they need to choose. Two of these options, A and B, remain the same across all choice sets within that context. The 3-option sets (two such sets) present the standard asymmetric set-up: Options A and B (that present trade-offs) and another option which is dominated by A (choice set 1) or dominated by B (choice set 2). A between subject comparison of choices across these two sets allows us to examine whether the asymmetric dominance effect is replicated in our 3 contexts. The 5-option sets are similar except for the fact that instead of one decoy for A or B, there are 3: one for A and two for B in choice set 3 (and vice versa in choice set 4). A between subject comparison of choices across these sets allows to examine whether the effect extends to the case of an asymmetric amount of decoys. Description of the three different contexts: Two contexts are lotteries and the third consists of bundles comprising high quality pens and a monetary amount. Control group and Treatment Groups: The design may be viewed as a randomized controlled trial. For each context, the choice set with 3 alternatives (one decoy) where alternative B is the target (B is the alternative with the higher probability of winning a prize in the lottery contexts or the alternative with more pens in the pen-money context) will be taken as the control-like group. The choice distributions in the other choice sets will be compared to this benchmark group. They will also be compared to each other using Analysis of Variance. Design: Between subject design. Each subject is randomly assigned to either one of 4 treatments (with two orders for each). Each subject answers 3 questions (plus one distraction question). The first question (context 1) deals with lotteries, the second (context 2) with bundles (money and pens) and the third with lotteries (context 3). Incentives: 5% of those who complete the experiment will be randomly drawn and receive payment according to their answer in one randomly drawn question. Planned Analysis: We will make 3 between-subject comparisons (one for each context). In each context we expect most subjects to choose either one of the two basic options A or B. Comparing the proportions that choose each of the two options (using ANOVA) will allow us to examine whether the basic effect is replicated and understand whether it extends to the multiple-asymmetric-decoy case. The results may hint as to which economic models may be more fitting to accommodate this finding.
Randomization Method
Online questionnaire with randomization done by a computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
-
Sample size: planned number of observations
About 500-600
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Roughly 125-150 subjects in each of the four treatments.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Haifa
IRB Approval Date
2019-01-29
IRB Approval Number
031/19, 240/19
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