Economic Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction of Delivery Workers

Last registered on December 17, 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

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
October 27, 2020, 7:14 AM EDT

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

Last updated
December 17, 2020, 12:36 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region
Region

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
2021-06-30
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. December 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6668
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
In this study, we elicit delivery workers' economic preferences and cognitive abilities via an online survey experiment. We randomize the timing workers first receive the survey link: while 1/3 of the workers in our sample answer the survey before the Double-11 festival, a major shopping season in China, another 1/3 answer the survey after the festival but before receiving the corresponding wage income, and the last 1/3 answer the survey after receiving the Double-11 festival wage income. While our main design is a between-subject comparison, we also send a second-time survey at the third time point for those in the first group, so that we also have a within-subject comparison design embedded for this subsample.

Moreover, we also randomize whether the participant receive information regarding the officially reported average wage income of those employed in Tianjin in year 2018 (the latest year available), which is orthogonal to the timing treatments. Therefore, we have in total 2X3=6 treatment groups.
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

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

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