The Doors of Perception

Last registered on May 20, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Doors of Perception
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004219
Initial registration date
May 17, 2019

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
May 20, 2019, 2:23 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of California, Santa Barbara

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2019-05-19
End date
2019-12-19
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The objective of the experiment is to test a set of hypotheses derived from our perception-based model of framing. In a nutshell, we assume that each player is endowed with a particular frame (or set of frames), but can become aware of additional frames. Given this, the model defines a notion of frame-dependent rationalizability, which we use to formulate behavioral predictions in relation to exogenous (treatment-induced) variations in individuals’ awareness.
Specifically, the model considers “matching games” in which pairs of players have identical action sets (where each action is represented by a visual object), and are rewarded for choosing the same elements from these sets. A frame may be thought of as a player’s categorization of objects (i.e., a partition of her actions) on the basis of the attributes she is aware of. Our behavioral theory assumes that players have partial and different awareness of perceptual features (such as attributes of the objects) that may be useful for coordination. In the experiment we exogenously manipulate individuals’ awareness, in order to test our notion of frame-dependent rationalizability.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Charness, Gary and Alessandro Sontuoso. 2019. "The Doors of Perception." AEA RCT Registry. May 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4219-1.0
Former Citation
Charness, Gary and Alessandro Sontuoso. 2019. "The Doors of Perception." AEA RCT Registry. May 20. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/4219/history/46860
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2019-05-19
Intervention End Date
2019-07-19

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Subjects' choice behavior in coordination (matching) games.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our experimental design involves a coordination game we refer to as “Choose Something”. In what follows we describe our Baseline treatment.

In the Baseline condition, each subject is assigned to a computer terminal and each is shown the same six objects on her own screen. The objects are blocks (i.e., colored shapes), which the computer program identifies by the numbers (invisible to the subjects) 1 to 6. The blocks are loosely arranged in a hexagonal fashion (one object per vertex) and collectively occupy the left-hand side of the screen. After each participant has viewed the six objects on her screen, the computer program selects three of those objects – one by one – by sliding them and putting them in a column on the right-hand-side of the screen (note: the same three objects for each member of a pair); the rest of the objects subsequently disappear from the screen. Subjects are then prompted to complete a few tasks. The list below specifies the entire sequence of events.
i. Each subject is assigned to a computer terminal and everyone is shown the paper instructions. Pairs of subjects are formed at random.
ii. Subjects are presented with six objects on their screen, three of which are subsequently selected by the program and put in a column.
iii. An on-screen message prompts subjects to label those three objects [“PART A”].
iv. An on-screen message prompts subjects to estimate the probabilities of the three objects being chosen by others [“PART B”]; they are informed that good guesses will be rewarded with an additional payment.
v. An on-screen message prompts subjects to choose an object (by ticking the box located next to the label); they are reminded that their payoff will be $1 if both members of the pair chose the same object, $0 otherwise [“PART C”].
vi. Steps ii.-v. are repeated for 9 more rounds, whereby in each round a new three-object selection is implemented by the program and shown to each member of a pair. (In each round, subjects are randomly assigned to another pair, and are so informed.) No feedback is given between rounds.
vii. Payment.
We stress that the design of our Baseline treatment involves no exogenous labels. In summary, in order to easily identify the blocks (for the purposes of performing tasks iv. and v.), in PART A of each round subjects are asked to type a short text in each of three boxes beside the objects. (We note that our hypothesis-testing does not rely on such qualitative data; in fact, the labeling task simply serves the purpose of pushing subjects to think of the game in their own terms.) After that, in PART B of each round, subjects are asked to estimate the likelihood of each block being chosen by others. Finally, in PART C of each round, subjects are asked to choose a block. The entire set-up is common information among all participants.

The design of the “All-Aware” treatment is the same as the Baseline except for PART B, which presents 3 extra questions. Specifically, in PART B subjects see the following message.
«Recall that – in Part C of the experiment – you will be prompted to pick one object in order to coordinate with your partner. Now, prior to that we would like to know what you think about the other participants in this room. Please answer the following questions by moving the sliders to the desired percentages. Note that your partner will not be asked to answer these questions.
1) How likely do you think it is that the other participants have noticed the order in which the objects have been drawn by the computer program? Please move the below slider.
2) How likely do you think it is that the other participants have noticed the different colors of the objects? Please move the below slider.
3) How likely do you think it is that the other participants have noticed the different shapes of the objects? Please move the below slider.»
A few comments are due. The order in which questions 1) - 3) are presented is randomized in each round. Subjects enter their guesses by moving a slider (i.e., one slider per question) to the desired percentage, with the slider ranging from 0% to 100%. Note that the questions above are not incentivized: the purpose of these questions is to make each subject privately aware of multiple attributes. Also note that, after presenting questions 1) - 3) above, the All-Aware treatment proceeds to the incentivized belief-elicitation task described at step iv. of the Baseline; the rest of the treatment is identical to the Baseline.

Finally, we have designed three supplemental treatments to be the same as the Baseline, except for the labeling task of step iii. above (i.e., PART A): in such treatments the labeling task is omitted as the blocks are already labeled. Specifically, in PART A of the “Color-Aware”, “Shape-Aware”, and “Order-Aware” treatments, each of the available objects is displayed beside a color, shape, or order label, respectively. The purpose of such labels is to bring about common awareness of the relevant frame.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The experiment is conducted in the lab. Upon arrival at the lab, each subject is assigned to a computer terminal; the experiment is then fully administered using the zTree software (Fischbacher, 2007).
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
About 175 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We plan to collect choice data from about 50 subjects for each of the Baseline and the All-Aware treatments. Further, we plan to collect choice data from about 25 subjects for each of the Color-, Shape-, and Order-Aware treatments.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UCSB Human Subjects Committee
IRB Approval Date
2019-05-15
IRB Approval Number
3-19-0402
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials