x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Economic Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction of Delivery Workers
Last registered on October 27, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Economic Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction of Delivery Workers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0006668
Initial registration date
October 26, 2020
Last updated
October 27, 2020 7:14 AM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Nankai University, Tianjin, China
PI Affiliation
Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2020-10-27
End date
2020-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
In this study, we investigate the economic decision-making and job satisfaction of workers in the delivery industry.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Meng, Jingyi, Jingyi Meng and Wenbo Zou. 2020. "Economic Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction of Delivery Workers." AEA RCT Registry. October 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6668-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2020-10-27
Intervention End Date
2020-12-23
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Uncertainty preferences;
Time preferences;
Social preferences;
Cognitive abilities;
Job satisfaction;
Job search intensions.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Uncertainty preferences include measures of risk aversion (the MPL-elicited certainty equivalence and self-reported risk-taking), ambiguity aversion, loss aversion;
Time preferences include measures of patience between payoffs today versus payoffs 3 months later, as well as that between payoffs 3 months later and 6 months later, and both the dummy indicating present bias and the extent of present bias;
Social preferences include a continuous variable of sharing in a standard DG, and measures of altruism and efficiency concerns derived from choices of several modified mini-DG choices;
Cognitive abilities include measures from 3 cognitive questions;
Job satisfaction is measured by a five-point scale, for the job overall, for the aspect of work load/intensity, as well as for the aspect of wage income;
Job search intension is measured by a five-point scale regarding the likelihood of searching for a different job within a year within the company, outside the company but within the delivery industry, and outside the industry, as well as investing time and money in skill training for jobs other than the current one.



Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Work load in the past 20 days; stress levels in the past 20 days; stress level at the current moment when answering the survey; levels of positive and negative affect in the past 20 days; mood on that day; wage income most recently received; liquidity constraint in the recent time.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Work load in the past 20 days, both the maximum and average levels, are either self-reported or from the administrative data, if we have get access to it.
Stress levels in the past 20 days are measured using both the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the work-related part of the Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS) scale;
Stress level at the current moment when answering the survey is measured using a self-reported stress scale from 0 to 100;
Levels of positive and negative affect in the past 20 days are measured by the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS);
Mood on that day is measured by a simple five-point mood scale.
Wage income most recently received is either self-reported or from the administrative data, if we have get access to it.
Liquidity constraint in the recent time is measured by two questions regarding recent needs for credit and the difficulty in raising a certain amount of cash within a week.
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We send out the survey experiment at different time.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We access a roster of all employees at the Tianjin sorting center of a delivery company. We randomize by assigning a participant code (1-381) to each of the employees, selecting those with a participant code that equals 3n+1 to the Before Group, those with a participant code that equals 3n+2 to the After-1 Group, and those with a participant code that equals 3n+3 to the After-2 Group, where n=0,1,2,...,126.

The randomization of city average wage income information provision is implemented using the “randomized questions” feature of the Tencent Survey website (wj.qq.com). There are two versions of the questionnaire: one with the average wage information, and the other without; the website randomly selects one version when presenting the questionnaire to the participant.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
1 delivery sorting center of a company.
Sample size: planned number of observations
We will send our survey to all the more than 360 employees at the sorting center. We expect the response rate to be above 90%.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
110 individuals in the Before Group, 110 in the After-1 Group, and 110 in the After-2 Group.
165 individuals receiving the city average wage income information, and 165 individuals not receiving.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information