Back to History Current Version

The consistency of rationality

Last registered on December 24, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The consistency of rationality
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0008733
Initial registration date
December 21, 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
December 24, 2021, 5:05 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
China
Region
Hunan Province

Primary Investigator

Name
You Shan
Affiliation
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Liu Xiao
PI Affiliation
Department of Economics, School of Economics and Managemen, Tsinghua University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Songfa Zhong
PI Affiliation
Department of Economics, School of Economics and Managemen, Tsinghua University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Mingshi Chen
PI Affiliation
Department of Finance, School of Economics and Managemen, Tsinghua University
PI Name
Yanju Zhou
PI Affiliation
School of Business, Central South University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-12-25
End date
2022-06-01
Keywords
Behavior, Welfare
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We design a survey experiment in China to measure people’s economic rationality in risk preference domain, social preference domain and food preference domain and compare them to check consistency between these three rationalities. Our motivation stems from the result of our previous survey experiment, which finds that the inconsistency between rationality in risk preference in the lab and consuming behavior in the field from scanner data. Therefore, we design another survey experiment in supermarket consumers to check the underlying mechanism of this inconsistency. Firstly, we design a food task to simulate a supermarket environment where subjects optimize between meat and vegetables under a fixed expenditure of 50 yuan, from which we can measure rationality in the food preference that is similar to consuming behavior in the field. Secondly, we design risk task and social task to measure subjects' rationality in risk preference and social preference separately, from which we can measure rationality in the lab. Thirdly, we will investigate the consistency between rationality in the food preference and risk/social preference: does the inconsistency between lab and field stems from the external invalidity of rationality in the lab or just problems in the scanner data? Then we will investigate the consistency between rationality in the risk preference and social preference: Is there any cross validity between risk preference and social preference in the lab?
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Zhou, Yanju et al. 2021. "The consistency of rationality." AEA RCT Registry. December 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8733-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We measure economic rationality of individual preferences. As such, we do not have an experimental intervention. Rather, we rely in natural variation on subject's characteristics.
Intervention Start Date
2021-12-25
Intervention End Date
2022-06-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The key outcome variables in this experiment are consistency scores measured by the choice data, as indicators of economic rationality in risk preference, social preference and food preference.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
1. Rationality in food preference

Subjects need to allocate a fixed expenditure of 50 RMB between vegetables and meat to choose their best buying amount in 22 rounds. With these decisions, we can observe violations of GARP (Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preferences) and compute their Critical Cost Effective Index (CCEI).


2. Ratioanlity in risk preference
Following Choi et al. (2007, 2014), Subjects have 100 points to allocate between two accounts where a point has different RMB value in 22 rounds. With these decisions, we can observe violations of GARP (Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preferences) and compute their Critical Cost Effective Index (CCEI).

3. Ratioanlity in social preference
Following Andreoni&Miller (2002), Subjects have 100 points to allocate between themselves and another subject where a point has different RMB value in 22 rounds. With these decisions, we can observe violations of GARP (Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preferences) and compute their Critical Cost Effective Index (CCEI).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Our secondary outcomes include (1) individuals' IQ, (2) big five personality traits and (3) socio-economic and sociodemographic investigation.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
(1) IQ test is based on Raven's Progressive Matrices, which consist of visual geometric design with a missing piece. The test taker is given to 7 questions having six to eight choices to pick from and fill in the missing piece;
(2) The Big Five personality traits, also known as the OCEAN model, is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits. The theory identifies five factors: openness to experience; conscientiousness; extraversion; agreeableness; neuroticism. The test taker is given to 10 questions.
(3) Socio-economic and sociodemographic investigation includes income, education, family size, gender, etc.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We design a survey experiment in supermarkets which will take approximately 25 minutes. The experiment consists of four sections. In Section 1, each participant has to make choices in the three tasks. In the food task, subjects are asked to allocate a budget between meat and vegetables in 22 questions. In the risk task, subjects are asked to allocate a budget between two risky assets, each one of which obtains with a probability of 0.5. The assets have different payoffs, so that allocations give an indication of risk preferences. There are 22 questions in this task. In the social task, subjects are asked to allocate a budget between themselves and another subject. The both have different payoffs, so that allocations give an indication of social preferences. The order of these 3 task are random, and computer randomly chooses one round from the 66 rounds of three tasks and participant will get rewarded depending on the outcome of this chosen round.

In Section 2, we measure 5 Big personality of subjects. In Section 3, we test subjects' IQ by raven Test. Lastly, we ask participants for their demographic and economic information, including gender, education level and other socio-economic and sociodemographic characteristics.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Subjects were randomly assigned to different versions of survey. The difference of survey is the order of questions and order of three tasks in secition1. This randomization was done by the software used to conduct the survey.
Randomization Unit
Different versions of the survey.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 consumers
Sample size: planned number of observations
300 consumers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
300 consumers
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
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