Finding Merit where there is None - Cross Country Differences

Last registered on November 12, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Finding Merit where there is None - Cross Country Differences
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0008552
Initial registration date
November 10, 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
November 12, 2021, 6:05 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
Sweden
Region
Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Johanna Mollerstrom
Affiliation
George Mason University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-11-11
End date
2021-11-21
Keywords
Behavior, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study investigates the extent to which meritocrats create merit when there is none, e.g. through assigning meaning to choices which are, in fact, random.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mollerstrom, Johanna. 2021. "Finding Merit where there is None - Cross Country Differences." AEA RCT Registry. November 12. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8552-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Impartial spectators decide how to distribute earnings between a winner and a loser in a lottery. There are two treatments. In one treatment, the lottery is described as completely random. In the second treatment, while it is still completely random who wins and loses, the process contains elements of choice on behalf of the players.
Intervention Start Date
2021-11-11
Intervention End Date
2021-11-21

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Spectator's distribution of resources between the Winner and the Loser in the lottery.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Impartial spectators decide how to distribute earnings between a winner and a loser in a lottery. There are two treatments. In one treatment, the lottery is described as completely random. In the second treatment, while it is still completely random who wins and loses, the process contains elements of choice on behalf of the players.
Experimental Design Details
Impartial spectators decide how to distribute earnings between a winner and a loser in a lottery. There are two treatments. In one treatment, the lottery is described as completely random. In the second treatment, while it is still completely random who wins and loses, the process contains elements of choice on behalf of the players.
Randomization Method
Randomization by computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1000 spectators
Sample size: planned number of observations
1000 spectators (500 in the US, 500 in Sweden)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
250 per treatment/country.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Institutional Review Board at George Mason University
IRB Approval Date
2021-10-07
IRB Approval Number
1819911-1
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