Subjective Beliefs and Commitment Contract Take-Up

Last registered on December 31, 2022

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Subjective Beliefs and Commitment Contract Take-Up
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009655
Initial registration date
June 27, 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
July 08, 2022, 12:13 PM EDT

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

Last updated
December 31, 2022, 12:24 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of California, Berkeley

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of California, Berkeley

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-06-30
End date
2023-05-15
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study seeks to better understand the relationship between subjective beliefs and commitment contract take-up. Specifically, we will run a two-session modification of the survey-based experiment from Augenblick and Rabin (2019). We ask participants to predict the number of tasks they will do in the current session and in the next session for various wages, and also elicit the number of tasks they want themselves to do in the next session. We offer participants commitment contracts to perform a target number of Greek transcription tasks. Leveraging natural uncertainty, we collect participants’ subjective beliefs about the full distribution of how many tasks they think they will do in the future and collect their beliefs about the probability of reaching the target number of tasks both without and with the commitment contract.

We experimentally manipulate beliefs in two ways. First, we manipulate aspects of commitment contract. In particular, we record beliefs and commitment take-up under different task target numbers, different benefits of doing the task, and different penalties of missing the task target. Second, we inject uncertainty about when participants will perform future tasks, allowing us to manipulate beliefs without manipulating the contract itself.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Kim, Woojin and Eric Koepcke. 2022. "Subjective Beliefs and Commitment Contract Take-Up." AEA RCT Registry. December 31. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9655-1.1
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2022-06-30
Intervention End Date
2022-07-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
See Design section below for variable explanation.

1. Commitment contract take-up: What is the relationship between subjective beliefs and commitment contract take-up? I.e., How are beliefs about (the full distribution of) predicted future task choices (and desired task choices) and perceived probability of reaching the contract's task target (both without and with the commitment contract in effect) associated with take-up of the contract? How is take-up affected by our treatment arms? Is take-up associated with the rank (see 2b in the Design section) respondents gave to the Session 2 date (for those informed of the date)?

2. Subjective beliefs about future task choices: How are the beliefs (outlined in (1) above) affected by our treatment arms? Are beliefs associated with the rank respondents gave to the Session 2 date (for those informed of the date)?
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1. Difference between current work choices, work predictions, and desired work choices (i.e., the present-focus estimation methodology of Augenblick and Rabin, 2019): Are these differences affected by the Session 2 date (un)certainty treatment? Are they associated with the rank (see 2b in the Design section) respondents gave to the Session 2 date (for those informed of the date)?

2. How confident are respondents in their work predictions? Text analysis of reasons why they are uncertain.

3. Perceived impact of commitment contracts: How much does perceived probability of reaching the task target increase with a commitment contract in effect? How does this depend on the task target and initial beliefs about probability of success? How is this affected by our treatment arms? How is this associated with the rank respondents gave to the Session 2 date (for those informed of the date)?

4. Number of tasks respondents actually end up doing: How accurate were their (corresponding) current work choices?
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This is a two-session study. Both sessions are conducted via a Qualtrics' survey. The study is a modified version of the one used in Augenblick and Rabin (2019). In this study, respondents make choices/predictions about how many Greek transcription tasks they will do. Each Greek transcription task involves transcribing a sentence of blurry Greek characters into their English counterpart.

In our study, we introduce commitment contracts to perform a target number of transcription tasks during Session 2. Under each contract there is a task target number, a base wage-per-task, and a penalty wage-per-task (which is less than the base wage-per-task). If the contract is accepted and enacted, the respondent is paid the base wage-per-task if they complete the target number of tasks (or more) and is paid the penalty wage-per-task if they complete less tasks.

We have two different types of treatments:
1. Commitment contract treatment: We have three different commitment contract types, where each has a different base and penalty wage-per-task combination. Respondents are randomized to a type, i.e., each respondent is only asked questions about one type of commitment contract.
2. Session 2 date (un)certainty: Before answering questions related to Session 2 work (see below), respondents are randomized. Half are informed of the date that Session 2 will take place. The other half know that Session 2 will take place on one of three future dates and are informed that the Session 2 date will be revealed to them at the end of Session 1 (i.e., after answering questions related to Session 2 work).
-Thus, there are 6 treatment arms/combinations.

Session 1 Outline:
(1) Introduction and five practice/warm-up transcription tasks

(2) Survey questions:
(a) Current work: Respondents are asked to report how many tasks they would like to do at the end of the Current session for different (per-task) wages
(b) Each respondent is told that Session 2 may take place on one of three future dates. They are asked to rank these three days based on how certain they are about how busy they'll be on each day. Half of the respondents are then informed the date of Session 2, while the other half are informed that the date of Session 2 will be revealed at the end of the current session
(c) Work Predictions: Respondents are asked to predict how many tasks they think they will do during Session 2 for different wages
(d) Desired work: Respondents are asked to report how many tasks they'd like to do during Session 2 for different wages
(e) Respondents are asked how certain they are about their predictions in (c) and asked for reasons for any uncertainty
(f) Respondents are asked to provide their full subjective probability distribution of how many tasks they think they will do during Session 2. They are asked to provide this for two different per-task wages, one of which corresponds to the base wage-per-task for the commitment contract type they were assigned to
(g) Commitment contracts are introduced and explained and respondents answer several comprehension questions
(h) For different task target numbers, respondents are asked to provide their subjective beliefs about how likely they would be to reach the target IF the commitment contract was in effect
(i) For different task target numbers, respondents are asked whether they accept or decline each commitment contract

(3) Task Completion: A random (per-task) wage is selected. Respondents are then free to complete tasks for that wage.

Session 2 only involves (1), (2a), and (3) above. For (3), it is possible that a commitment contract accepted in Session 1 is enacted.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
75-200 respondents
Sample size: planned number of observations
75-200 respondents
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
40-100 respondents per commitment contract treatment. 40-100 respondents per date (un)certainty treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UC Berkeley Committee for Protection of Human Subjects (IRB)
IRB Approval Date
2021-12-02
IRB Approval Number
2021-10-14775

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