|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
An Empirical Study of "We-thinking" and Status
|
After
When Social Identity Matters: Low Self-Esteem in Highly Esteemed Groups Predicts “We-thinking”
|
|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
on_going
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Social motivations, such as one’s status, enjoy wide recognition as critical determinants of human behavior. A key reason for studying individual and group status is to shed light on the conditions that facilitate—or deter—actions that enhance group payoffs at the cost of individual payoffs. In this paper, I focus on two types of status: the status that is conferred on an individual and the status conferred on the group to which an individual belongs. I extend a model based on R. Akerlof (2016) where individuals face a tradeoff between maximizing the group’s payoffs and their individual payoffs, and their willingness to maximize the group’s payoffs is positively related to the extent to which their group status is higher than their individual status. The model predicts that subjects with high (low) group status and low (high) individual status are most (least) engaged in maximizing the group’s payoffs. To test this prediction, I conduct a laboratory experiment in which individual status is assigned based on individual performance in a competition in which subjects answer questions from an established IQ test, and group status is determined by the overall performance of the individual group members. In the information treatment, subjects learn about both their individual and group ranks (but do not have this information in the baseline). Subjects allocate tokens such that either their own or the group’s payoff is maximized. This study can help us predict what types of people are intrinsically motivated to work for the group and what types of people are not and might need extra motivations.
|
After
Social motivations, such as esteem, enjoy wide recognition as critical determinants of human behavior. According to R. Akerlof (2016), esteem is defined as an individual’s judgment of how good an agent/group is compared with reference agents/groups. In this paper, we focus on two types of esteem: a person’s self-esteem and the esteem conferred on the group to which the person belongs. We extend a model based on R. Akerlof where individuals face a tradeoff between maximizing the group’s payoffs and their individual payoffs, and their willingness to maximize the group’s payoffs is positively related to the extent to which their group-esteem is higher than their self-esteem. Our main prediction is that subjects with high (low) group-esteem and low (high) self-esteem are most (least) engaged in maximizing the group’s payoffs. To test this prediction, we conduct a laboratory experiment in which self-esteem and group-esteem are manipulated through an inter-personal and inter-group competition in which subjects answer questions from an established IQ test. Subjects allocate tokens such that either their own or the group’s payoff is maximized.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
April 30, 2020
|
After
December 31, 2020
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
December 20, 2019 05:54 AM
|
After
September 05, 2020 05:51 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
April 30, 2020
|
After
December 31, 2020
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
This study is intended to test the following predictions: 1) When a person has high group status and low individual status, she puts more weight on her group’s payoff than her own payoff and thus allocates more to her group than herself. 2) When she has low group status and high individual status, she puts more weight on her own payoff than her group’s payoff and thus allocates more to herself than her group.
I conduct a laboratory experiment to test the hypotheses above. The experiment has two treatments: Baseline and TreatStatus. Subjects in the TreatStatus treatment receive information about their group status and individual status before their allocation between their groups and themselves, while subjects in the Baseline do not have the information before their allocation. Both treatments consist of four stages. There are six subjects in each session. I use z-Tree (Fischbacher, 2007) to program this experiment. The show-up fee is $8.
The experiment consists of 4 stages. Subjects' behaviors in Stage 2 and 3 affect their payoffs. At the end of the experiment, the computer randomly decides whether Stage 2 or Stage 3 will be used to determine each subject's payoff.
In Stage 1, I assign subjects in both treatments to different groups based on their preferences for paintings. The procedure in this stage mainly follows Chen and Li’s design (2006) with a few changes to guarantee that the number of subjects in each group is the same.
Six subjects are assigned to two groups based on their reported preference on five pairs of paintings . In each pair, there is one painting made by Paul Klee and one painting made by Wassily Kandinsky. Each subject independently chooses which painting she prefers in each pair without being told the artist of each painting. After all subjects make their decisions, the computer sorts the six subjects based on how many Klee’s paintings they prefer (if there is a tie among multiple subjects, then these subjects’ orders are determined randomly). The first three subjects, who prefer the most Klee’s paintings, are classified into Group Klee. The second three subjects, who prefer relatively less Klee’s paintings, are classified into Group Kandinsky. Subjects in Group Klee are told that all of their group members relatively prefer Klee’s paintings, compared with other subjects. Subjects in Group Kandinsky are privately told that all of their group members relatively prefer Kandinsky’s paintings . Each subject does not receive information about any other subject’s group membership. Groups remain the same for the entire experiment.
In Stage 2, subjects in both treatments participate in a two-round competition in which they answer questions from an established IQ test. All the IQ test questions are selected from Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Plus. The first round of the game determines their individual status, while the second round determines their group status. In the first round of the game, all subjects are assigned into pairs in which the two subjects are from different groups (i.e. one subject is from the Klee group and the other is from the Kandinsky group). Each pair participate in a competition in which they are asked to solve as many IQ test questions as possible within five minutes. At the end of the first round, the subject who correctly solved more problems within each pair wins the first round of the game and receives an $2.50 bonus, while the subject who loses the first round receives $0.
In the second round, each subject is again given five minutes to solve as many IQ test questions as possible. At the end of the second round, the computer calculates the total number of correct answers the three members get in each group. The group with more total correct answers wins the second round and each of the three group members receives an $2.50 bonus, while each of the three group members in the group who loses the second round receives $0.
After the second round, subjects in the Baseline treatment and the TreatStatus treatment receive different information about their performance in Stage 2. Each subject in the Baseline treatment only sees a screen which tells him/her that Stage 2 is finished but receives no information about whether she wins Round 1 or whether her group wins Round 2. They are not told the results until the end of the experiment. Each subject in the TreatStatus treatment, however, is told whether she wins the first round and whether her group win the second round. Each subject does not receive any information about the number of questions she correctly solves or any other subject’s game results throughout the whole experiment.
In Stage 3, I elicit subjects’ engagement in “we-thinking” in both treatments. Each subject is asked to play a dictator game in which she decides how to allocate six tokens between her personal account and her group account. Each token allocated to her personal account is worth $1.00, while each token allocated to her group account is worth $1.50. At the end of this stage, the computer randomly selects one subject in each group to determine the payoffs in her group. If a subject’s decision is randomly selected to determine payment, she gets all the money she allocates to her personal account, and the money she allocates to her group account is evenly shared by the 3 members of her group. In other words, this subject’s payoff equals to $1.00 * the number of tokens she allocates to her personal account + $1.50 / 3 * the number of tokens she allocates to her group account. The two other subjects in her group, whose decisions are not selected, receive payoffs of $1.50 / 3 * the number of tokens she (i.e. the subject in their group whose decision is selected) allocates to her group account.
In Stage 4, subjects in both treatments are asked to answer several survey questions about to what extent they are attached to their groups and to what extent they feel good about their individual and group performance in Stage 2.
After subjects in both treatments finish Stage 4, they are shown the last screen which displays all the game results in Stage 2 (i.e. whether they win the first round and whether their groups win the second round), Stage 3 (i.e. whether their decisions are randomly selected and the allocation results), whether their payoffs in Stage 2 or Stage 3 is selected for payment and their final earnings from the experiment.
|
After
This study is intended to test the following main predictions: 1) When a person has high group-esteem and low self-esteem, she puts more weight on her group’s payoff than her own payoff and thus allocates more to her group than herself. 2) When she has low group-esteem and high self-esteem, she puts more weight on her own payoff than her group’s payoff and thus allocates more to herself than her group.
I conduct a laboratory experiment to test the hypotheses above. The experiment has two treatments: Baseline and TreatInfo. Subjects in the TreatInfo treatment receive information about their group status (i.e. win the group battle or not) and individual status (i.e. win the individual battle or not) before their allocation between their groups and themselves, while subjects in the Baseline do not have the information before their allocation. Both treatments consist of four stages. There are six subjects in each session. I use z-Tree (Fischbacher, 2007) to program this experiment. The show-up fee is $8.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
280 individuals
|
After
174 individuals
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
280 individuals
|
After
174 individuals
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
56 individuals in Baseline; 224 individuals in TreatStatus
|
After
30 individuals in Baseline; 144 individuals in TreatInfo
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
status, group behavior
|
After
esteem, group behavior, status
|