Motivated Interpretation of No News

Last registered on March 01, 2022

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Motivated Interpretation of No News
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007870
Initial registration date
June 24, 2021

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
June 25, 2021, 1:37 PM EDT

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

Last updated
March 01, 2022, 10:31 PM EST

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Sciences Po, Paris

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
CNRS, Sciences Po
PI Affiliation
Innsbruck, Austria

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-03-02
End date
2023-03-02
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Individuals rely on disclosed information to take most of their purchasing decisions. Information about products can be revealed in various ways, including labeling or advertising, but usually provides some evidence of the truth. When information is very precise, individuals have little room to interpret information in self-serving ways. In contrast, when information is vague or absent, individuals have some wiggle room to form the belief they favor about products. For example, they may form the belief that some products are not so detrimental for health or for the environment.

We design an experiment in which subjects have to guess the ethical, environmental or ethical quality of real products. Subjects do so after having either won or not won these products in a competition. We design a labeling technology which is such that there are two ways for subjects to interpret the absence of informative label on a product: either the quality is too low, or the quality is good but the label simply got lost for exogenous reasons. In the lab, we vary exogenously the probability with which good labels can be lost, as a way to leave more or less room to subjects for a motivated interpretation of no information. We investigate whether owners and non-owners of products interpret the lack of information in significantly different ways, with a more positive interpretation by the formers. We analyze whether the difference in interpretation gets larger when there is more room for positive interpretation.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Hagenbach, Jeanne, Claire Rimbaud and Charlotte SAUCET. 2022. "Motivated Interpretation of No News." AEA RCT Registry. March 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7870-4.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2022-03-02
Intervention End Date
2023-03-02

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The key outcome variables are the participants' guesses of the quality for each product. We may also compute, for each participant, the difference between the expected guesses (Bayes' rule) and the participants' guesses.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
For the experiment, we have selected real products that participants can win. We have selected T-shirts produced by 4 different firms and which have 4 different ethical qualities. We have selected soaps which are produced by 4 different firms and which have 4 different environmental qualities.We have selected boxes of muesli produced by 4 different firms and which have 4 different nutritional qualities.

The experiment has three independent parts. In each part, the participants have the possibility to win either a T-shirt, a soap, or a muesli. The three parts are the same, except for the product itself, and their order is randomized for each session.The timing of each part goes as follows:
1. Participants are randomly matched by pair. For each pair, we randomly select a product of one of the 4 possible qualities. In each pair, the two participants compete – in a 2-minutes real-effort counting task – to win the product. Participants know whether they can win a T-shirt, a soap or a box of muesli. After the 2 minutes, the participants learn whether they won the product or not.
2. Participants are told that the product they have won / have not won can be of 4 different qualities: very good, good, medium or low, with equal probabilities. We explain how we computed these qualities (ethical, environmental or nutritional) for each product.
3. Participants are the told that they may see a label that is informative about the quality of the product they have won / have not won. We explain the labeling strategy: 1-star label for very good or good products, no label for medium or low quality products. We also explain that the 1-star label is sometimes lost, which also result in no label on the screen. We give the probability with which the label can be lost: either 20% or 80%.
4. Once they saw a label or no label, participants have to state what they believe is the quality of the product they have just won / have not won. They get 1.5 euro if they guess the quality right and 0 otherwise.

Trial of the counting task and final questionnaire: Before the 3 parts, we also match participants by pair once and make them try the counting task. The participant who performs best in each pair wins 4 euros. This “trial” allows us to control for participants’ ability in the counting task independently of their desirability for the product at stake. After the 3 parts, the participants complete a questionnaire about their preferences regarding ethics, environment and nutrition. We also ask the participants when they plan to look for the products they won (if any). Finally, participants complete a demographic questionnaire (age, gender, etc).

Treatment variations: Our experiment manipulates 2 dimensions. We vary (1) whether participants either win or do not win each product, and (2) whether labels have a high or low chance to be lost for exogenous reasons, and therefore are not visible on the screen. Labels are lost either with probability 0.2 or 0.8, between participants.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
We randomly assign each experimental session to one of the 2 treatments. Subjects voluntary sign up to participate in lab-sessions but, at the time of registration, cannot know the treatment they will receive.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
No clustering
Sample size: planned number of observations
Minimum of 160 subjects.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Since the probability to see the label varies between treatments, we run a different a minimum of 4 sessions of the treatment in which α= 0.8 and a minimum of 6 sessions in which α= 0.2 to have balanced sample size of participants that do not see the label across treatments.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Ethics Committee of the Paris Institute of Political Studies
IRB Approval Date
2020-10-07
IRB Approval Number
2020-013
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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