| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After December 31, 2020 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After N/A |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 503 |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After 297, 203 |
| Field Public Data URL | Before | After https://github.com/boonhankoh/EGK-effort_luck |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After No |
| Field Program Files | Before | After Yes |
| Field Program Files URL | Before | After https://github.com/boonhankoh/EGK-effort_luck |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After December 31, 2020 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After Yes |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Decision makers in positions of power often make unobserved choices under risk and uncertainty. In many cases, they face a trade-off between maximizing their own payoff and those of other individuals. What inferences are made in such instances about their choices when only outcomes are observable? We conduct two experiments that investigate whether outcomes are attributed to luck or choices. Decision makers choose between two investment options, where the more costly option has a higher chance of delivering a good outcome (that is, a higher payoff) for the group. We show that attribution biases exist in the evaluation of good outcomes. On average, good outcomes of decision makers are attributed more to luck as compared to bad outcomes. This asymmetry implies that decision makers get too little credit for their successes. The biases are exhibited by those individuals who make or would make the less prosocial choice for the group as decision makers, suggesting that a consensus effect may be shaping both the belief formation and updating processes. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L. & Koh, B.H. By chance or by choice? Biased attribution of others’ outcomes when social preferences matter. Exp Econ 25, 413–443 (2022). |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-021-09731-w |