|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The main feature of the present study is the introduction of “middle-groups” between in- and out-groups within the minimal group paradigm.
First, participants are asked whether they prefer a painting by Kandinsky or Klee. Based on this choice participants are grouped in groups of 3-5 where everyone chose the same painting. This is the in-group of a participant. An out-group member is described as a random participant who takes part in this study at another (unknown to the participant) university, at a different time and who chose the other painting. A member of a middle-group is described as a random participant who takes part in this study at the same university at a different time who chose the same painting. In a variation that participant is at another university.
With their respective in-group, the participants have to solve a group task. Individually they have to identify which of two paintings was made by the painter they chose in the first activity, there are five rounds of this with new paintings in each round. All the individual guesses in a group are added up, and if a group made more correct than false guesses they win a monetary reward.
As task, the experiment uses an adaption of the mind game as presented in Hruschka et al (2014) ‘Impartial Institutions, Pathogen Stress and the Expanding Social Network’. Participants are presented cups that are associated with the groups mentioned above (in-, middle-, alternative middle-, out-group). In step 1 of every round they should pick one of the cups in their head (unobservable to the experimenter), in step 2 they should roll a die (unobservable to the experimenter), in step 3 they should put 1 coin in one of the cups depending on the cup they chose in their head and the result of the die-roll. Whether participants put the coin into the “correct” cup is unobservable to the experimenter. But due to the random nature of the die-roll, it should be equal in all cups, which can be tested statistically.
The experiment consists of two parts directly after each other with 30 rounds of the above-mentioned steps in both parts, so in total 60 rounds.
There are three setups of the cups:
• In the first setup (“2”), there are only cups of the in- and out-group.
• In the second setup (“3”), there are cups of in-, middle- and out-group.
• In the third setup (“3a”), there are cups of in-, the above-mentioned alternative middle- and out-group.
We use four treatments that combine the setups in the two parts in different ways: (“first part” – “second part”):
1. 2-2
2. 2-3
3. 3-3
4. 2-3a
We plan to run this study with 4 sessions each at Heidelberg University and at Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT). In each session we aim to have 30-35 participants, so a total sample size of 240-280. The treatments will be randomly assigned, so will be roughly, but most likely not exactly, similar in size.
|
After
The main feature of the present study is the introduction of “middle-groups” between in- and out-groups within the minimal group paradigm.
First, participants are asked whether they prefer a painting by Kandinsky or Klee. Based on this choice participants are grouped in groups of 3-5 where everyone chose the same painting. This is the in-group of a participant. An out-group member is described as a random participant who takes part in this study at another (unknown to the participant) university, at a different time and who chose the other painting. A member of a middle-group is described as a random participant who takes part in this study at the same university at a different time who chose the same painting. In a variation that participant is at another university.
With their respective in-group, the participants have to solve a group task. Individually they have to identify which of two paintings was made by the painter they chose in the first activity, there are five rounds of this with new paintings in each round. All the individual guesses in a group are added up, and if a group made more correct than false guesses they win a monetary reward.
As task, the experiment uses an adaption of the mind game as presented in Hruschka et al (2014) ‘Impartial Institutions, Pathogen Stress and the Expanding Social Network’. Participants are presented cups that are associated with the groups mentioned above (in-, middle-, alternative middle-, out-group). In step 1 of every round they should pick one of the cups in their head (unobservable to the experimenter), in step 2 they should roll a die (unobservable to the experimenter), in step 3 they should put 1 coin in one of the cups depending on the cup they chose in their head and the result of the die-roll. Whether participants put the coin into the “correct” cup is unobservable to the experimenter. But due to the random nature of the die-roll, it should be equal in all cups, which can be tested statistically.
The experiment consists of two parts directly after each other with 30 rounds of the above-mentioned steps in both parts, so in total 60 rounds.
There are three setups of the cups:
• In the first setup (“2”), there are only cups of the in- and out-group.
• In the second setup (“3”), there are cups of in-, middle- and out-group.
• In the third setup (“3a”), there are cups of in-, the above-mentioned alternative middle- and out-group.
We use four treatments that combine the setups in the two parts in different ways: (“first part” – “second part”):
1. 2-2
2. 2-3
3. 3-3
4. 2-3a
We plan to run this study with 4 sessions each at Heidelberg University and at Hochschule Rhein-Waal. In each session we aim to have 30-35 participants, so a total sample size of 240-280. The treatments will be randomly assigned, so will be roughly, but most likely not exactly, similar in size.
|