Willful Ignorance and Reflection

Last registered on March 28, 2022

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Willful Ignorance and Reflection

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0009092

Initial registration date

March 28, 2022

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

March 28, 2022, 5:06 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country

Germany

Region

NRW

Primary Investigator

Name

Fabian Bopp

Affiliation

Paderborn University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Wendelin Schnedler

PI Affiliation

Paderborn University

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2022-03-31

End date

2022-05-31

Keywords

Behavior, Gender

Additional Keywords

Willful Ignorance, Information Avoiding, Reflection

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

Many people claim to intend to act pro-socially but do not. One reason might be that they are willfully ignoring the harm that they impose on others; this may allow them to maintain a positive self-image while serving their own interests. If this is the case, careful reflection may reveal to subjects that they are "kidding" themselves. We examine experimentally, whether reflection results in more people informing themselves about the negative consequences of their choices.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Bopp, Fabian and Wendelin Schnedler. 2022. "Willful Ignorance and Reflection." AEA RCT Registry. March 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9092-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Subjects are asked to explain their aims and how they intend to achieve them before the experiment. The difference between treatments is about which part of the experiment subjects are a supposed to explain. This can be either the first part, which is about revealing the consequences of a decision on others (OTHER treatment), or the second part, which is about revealing one's own chances to win (OWN treatment).

Intervention Start Date

2022-03-31

Intervention End Date

2022-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

share of how many subjects inform themselves (reveal the consequences of their decision)

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

The share of revelation can be directly observed.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

share of pro-social choices

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

We are interested in whether the expected effect on ignorance translates into an increased share of pro-social actions.

Experimental Design

The first part is based on the hidden information treatment in the moral wiggle room game by Dana, Weber, and Kuang (2007). Subject A can choose between two Options 'high' and 'low'. Her payoff is directly connected to her choice and is known to subject A. The payoff of subject B is depending on the choice of A. At the beginning of the game either interests are conflicting or aligned. If the interests are aligned the 'high' option is best for both subjects. If the interests are conflicting, the 'low' option is better for subject B and worse for A. In this case, subject A would be in a social dilemma. Subject A can decide whether he wants to learn whether the interests are aligned or conflicting. (This is the primary outcome variable.) In order to maximize observations, we use the strategy method for the information decision.

The second part is a lottery choice. The subject can choose between betting on blue or green. The subject can also forego some of its winning prize to reveal which color is more likely to win.

We ask subjects for one of the two parts to explain their aims and what they plan to do before actually making their respective choices. The intervention is then for which part they are asked this explanation. For the respective part, the explanation presumably increases reflection.

The experiment is run using subjects from Amazon Turk. In a previous lab experiment, we observed that most women reveal the consequences even without reflection. This is why we restrict the sample to men who tended to ignore the consequences of their decision and may hence be more susceptible to the intervention.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

randomization is done by a computer

Randomization Unit

Individuals are randomly assigned into treatments within one session

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Sample size: planned number of observations

600

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

300 men explaining decision about revealing information on payoff of other player (OTHER treatment)
300 men explaining decision when revealing information on own expected payoff (OWN treatment)

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB