One Ambiguous Source with Different Ambiguous Processes

Last registered on December 18, 2020
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
One Ambiguous Source with Different Ambiguous Processes
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006649
Initial registration date
December 18, 2020

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
December 18, 2020, 12:15 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
Germany
Region
Frankfurt am Main

Primary Investigator

Name
Feibai Zhu
Affiliation
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2020-10-01
End date
2021-07-31
Keywords
Behavior, Other
Additional Keywords
behavioral economics, ambiguity, ambiguity attitude
JEL code(s)
D91, C91
Secondary IDs
Abstract
I study whether the ambiguity can be perceived differently within one ambiguity source (i.e., Ellsberg urns). Well-known ambiguity models provide different predictions. I experimentally investigate the relationship between people's ambiguity attitudes and the ambiguous processes within one source.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Zhu, Feibai. 2020. "One Ambiguous Source with Different Ambiguous Processes." AEA RCT Registry. December 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6649-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2021-01-01
Intervention End Date
2021-01-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Choices between ambiguous bets and risky bets
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Subjects indicate their choices between betting on drawing a ball from an Ellsberg-like ambiguous bag and a list of risky bets. The switching points indicate the matching probabilities for the ambiguous bags (Dimmock et al. 2015).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
I measure the matching probabilities for Ellsberg bags and investigate the relationship between the matching probabilities and the information provided for that specific bag.
Experimental Design Details
I use a 2 by 2 factorial experiment design. 2 factors include 1) how samples are drawn and 2) how big the sample size is. The samples are drawn in 2 different ways: with replacement (SWR) and without replacement (SWOR). The sample size can be small (3 samples) or large (30 samples). Therefore, a fully crossed design includes 4 treatments. I use the ambiguity measurement methods proposed by Baillion et al. 2018. For each treatment, I ask subjects for their matching probabilities for the complementary events. Due to symmetry, two questions are asked for each treatment. For example, in the treatment of small sample size and with replacement, The subjects are told that 3 sample balls are drawn one by one with replacement from the bag and they include one red, one green, and one blue. Then I ask subjects for their matching probabilities when betting on red and when betting on not red (i.e., green or blue) if drawing a ball from the bag. Each subject is randomly assigned to SWOR or SWR (between-subject). but each subject answers questions for both the small sample size and the large sample size (within subject). Therefore, each subject answers 4 questions (I.e., 2 treatments). One out of the four questions is randomly chosen and repeated to check the consistency of the answers. In total each subject answers five questions. The sequence of the five questions is randomized by the computer program.
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
for each individual, the sequence of the questions/treatments, the selection of the payment question, and the selection of the consistency question are randomized.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
5 questions for each individual.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 individual in each treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethics Committee of the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management
IRB Approval Date
2020-11-29
IRB Approval Number
n/a
Analysis Plan

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