AEA RCT Registry

Trial Information

General Information

Title

The impact of delegation on the frequency of lying: Theory and experimental evidence

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0009443

Initial registration date

May 19, 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

May 23, 2022, 7:19 PM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name

Frauke von Bieberstein

Affiliation

University of Bern

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Eberhard Feess

PI Affiliation

Victoria University, Wellington

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

In development

Start date

2022-05-17

End date

2024-05-31

Keywords

Behavior

Additional Keywords

Online experiment, lottery, misconduct

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Prior work

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

Abstract

Subjects in our online experiment are randomly assigned to groups of three. All group members observe the same outcome of a lottery, which can be HIGH or LOW. The group receives the winning price if and only if the group member in charge reports HIGH. Our experiment has three treatments. (i) In treatment SINGLE, each of the three group members is asked to report the outcome. Each of their reports is then chosen with the same probability of one third to determine the payoff. (ii) In treatment DELEGATION, one subject is randomly chosen to be the first mover (FM). The FM can either report HIGH or LOW, but can also delegate the report to a second mover (SM) who is also randomly chosen. This SM needs to decide between HIGH and LOW.SMs are asked for their report under the assumption that they can actually make a report (i.e. that the FM delegates). (iii) In treatment MULTISTAGE DELEGATION, the SM can delegate as well. If so, the third mover (TM) is asked for the final report. Our main research question is how the frequency of HIGH final reports differs among treatments. We have developed a game theoretical model with moral costs, which occur if and only if the final report is HIGH when the outcome of the lottery is LOW. In our model, moral costs are highest when the own report is HIGH compared to a situation where another group member reports high. This sets incentives to delegate the decision. Our model yields the result that the order of the frequencies among the three treatments depends on the parameters. In particular, it is theoretically possible that the order is non-monotone. Our study is hence not hypothesis-based but explorative.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Feess, Eberhard and Frauke von Bieberstein. 2022. "The impact of delegation on the frequency of lying: Theory and experimental evidence." AEA RCT Registry. May 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9443-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Online experiment. Between-subject design. In treatment SINGLE, all three subjects are in the same role. In the other two treatments, subjects are randomly assigned to the three roles. Each subject makes just one decision, reporting HIGH or LOW, or delegating the report (for FMs in treatment DELEGATION and for FMs and SMs in treatment MULTISTAGE DELEGATION). Subjects also fill out a non-incentivized questionnaire where we ask for gender, age, the belief about how many subjects choose HIGH or LOW when the outcome is LOW (and delegate when applicable), preferences for delegating and being delegated to, and willingness to take risks.

The study will be conducted on Amazon MTurk, a large online platform for surveys and market research. We restrict the sample to participants whose country of residence are the USA, who have at least 500 approved assignments, and whose submissions have been approved in at least 95% of the cases. We impose these restrictions to ensure a high data quality.

Intervention Start Date

2022-05-23

Intervention End Date

2022-07-17

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

All our outcomes relate to the case when the outcome of the lottery is LOW (we can observe the outcome of the lottery, which is revealed to the subjects). Our primary outcome is the final frequency of HIGH reports, thereby taking the frequencies of delegation and the behavior of delegates into account.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

.For instance, the frequency of HIGH reports in MULTISTAGE DELEGATION is given as: proportion of FM lying + (proportion of FM delegating * proportion of SM lying) + (proportion of FM delegating * proportion of SM delegating * proportion of TM lying)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Our first secondary outcome is the comparison of the behavior of FMs in treatment DELEGATION and SMs in treatment MULTISTAGE DELEGATION (these subjects are, from an incentive perspective, in identical situations).
Our second secondary outcome is the comparison of the behavior of SMs in treatment DELEGATION, TMs in treatment MULTISTAGE DELEGATION and the subjects in treatment SINGLE (these subjects are, from an incentive perspective, in identical situations
We control for gender, age, the belief about how many subjects choose HIGH or LOW (and delegate when applicable) and for other variables taken from the questionnaire as well as for passing an attention checker in the questionnaire.

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Subjects in our online experiment are randomly assigned to groups of three. All group members observe the same outcome of a lottery, which can be HIGH or LOW. The group receives the winning price if and only if the group member in charge reports HIGH. Our experiment has three treatments. (i) In treatment SINGLE, each of the three group members is asked to report the outcome. Each of their reports is then chosen with the same probability of one third to determine the payoff. (ii) In treatment DELEGATION, one subject is randomly chosen to be the first mover (FM). The FM can either report HIGH or LOW, but can also delegate the report to a second mover (SM) who is also randomly chosen. This SM needs to decide between HIGH and LOW.SMs are asked for their report under the assumption that they can actually make a report (i.e. that the FM delegates). (iii) In treatment MULTISTAGE DELEGATION, the SM can delegate as well. If so, the third mover (TM) is asked for the final report.

Experimental Design Details

Not available

Randomization Method

Computer (online experiment)

Randomization Unit

Experimental session for the treatment and individual for the specific role

Was the treatment clustered?

No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Same as observations.

Sample size: planned number of observations

About 4’200 finishing the task We will exclude subjects that: - do not complete the MTurk task within 45 minutes of starting; - exit and then re-enter the task as a new subject (as these individuals might see multiple treatments); - are not approved for any other reason (e.g. not having a valid MTurk ID); - do answer two or more control questions incorrectly: these subjects do not take part in the decision task and are transferred to a dropout page. This procedure is explicitly described at the start of the instructions.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

600 (treatment SINGLE) and 1’800 (both delegation treatments); given that previous literature found gender differences in lying behavior, we aim to have about 50% women and 50% men in each treatment.

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

We conducted a pilot test of the treatment SINGLE, where about 60% of participants lied. Based on this data and a two-sided Chi2-test, an error probability of 0.05, and a power of 0.80, we require about 600 observations per treatment to detect a difference in proportions of 7.5 percentage points between treatments. Thus we will have 600 participants for treatment SINGLE (where all three subjects are in the same role), and 600*3=1’800 participants for the two delegation treatments (where there are FMs, SMs, and potentially TMs).

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

Ethics committee of the Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social Sciences at the University of Bern

IRB Approval Date

2022-05-19

IRB Approval Number

162022

Analysis Plan