|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
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 the 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.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
June 28, 2021
|
After
March 02, 2022
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
August 31, 2021
|
After
March 02, 2023
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
June 25, 2021 01:37 PM
|
After
February 21, 2022 10:45 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
June 28, 2021
|
After
March 02, 2022
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
August 31, 2021
|
After
March 02, 2023
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
The key outcome variables are the participants' guesses of the quality for each product.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
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: 2-stars label for very good products,1-star label for good product and no label for medium or low quality products. We also explain that 2-stars and 1-star labels are sometimes lost, which also result in no label on the screen. We give the probability with which labels can be lost:either 1 over 5 is lost or 4 over 5 are lost.
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 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 2 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 is a 2 by 2 treatment design. 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.
|
After
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: 2-stars label for very good products,1-star label for good product and no label for medium or low quality products. We also explain that 2-stars and 1-star labels are sometimes lost, which also result in no label on the screen. We give the probability with which labels can be lost:either 1 over 5 is lost or 4 over 5 are lost.
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.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
We randomly assign each experimental session to one of the 4 treatments. Subjects voluntary sign up to participate in our online sessions but, at the time of registration, cannot know the treatment they will receive.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Behavior
|
After
Behavior, Lab
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|