Pride and Prejudice? Structural Evidence of Social Pressure from a Field Experiment with Committees

Last registered on August 09, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Pride and Prejudice? Structural Evidence of Social Pressure from a Field Experiment with Committees
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009893
Initial registration date
August 07, 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
August 09, 2022, 4:47 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Ethiopia
Region
Addis Ababa

Primary Investigator

Name
Tom Schwantje
Affiliation
Department of Economics, University of Oxford
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Simon Quinn
PI Affiliation
Department of Economics, University of Oxford
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Girum Abebe
PI Affiliation
The World Bank
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Tom Gole
PI Affiliation
Boston Consulting Group
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Siân Brooke
PI Affiliation
London School of Economics
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-08-10
End date
2022-08-30
Keywords
Behavior, Finance & Microfinance, Firms & Productivity, Gender
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
D, O
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This pre-analysis plan details our experimental design and pre-analysis plan for an experiment on the role of institutional design on the relative success of male and female candidates in a business plan competition. We run an experiment in which judges are randomly assigned to both a committee treatment (as opposed to judging individually) and to a prompt detailing the importance of equal opportunity for male and female entrepreneurs. We pre-specify both our main reduced form analysis and a structural model yielding as main hypothesis that when members of a committee face social pressure to agree with each other, they overweight public information, generating status quo bias. We also pre-specify a more flexible generalisation of the model to test alternate hypotheses.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Abebe, Girum et al. 2022. "Pride and Prejudice? Structural Evidence of Social Pressure from a Field Experiment with Committees." AEA RCT Registry. August 09. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9893-1.0
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)
In this experiment, we test the hypothesis that when members of a committee face social pressure to agree with each other, they overweight public information, generating status quo bias. We do so by implementing a business plan competition in which judges are randomly assigned to either vote independently or as part of a committee, and to a treatment prompt alerting judges to the unique constraints female entrepreneurs face and the importance of equal opportunity. We assess whether these treatments, both independently and jointly, affect the probability a judge prefers a female over male candidate, and the probability of a unanimous decision.
Intervention Start Date
2022-08-10
Intervention End Date
2022-08-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcome is whether a judge votes for a female candidate over a male candidate
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Our secondary outcomes are whether or not a committee's decision was unanimous, and whether the unanimous decision was for the male or female candidate in a binary comparison.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We implement a fully randomised design. Please see the attached pre-analysis plan for a detailed overview of the experimental design.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer, after which judges are assigned an ID within the randomization based on where they sit on the day.
Randomization Unit
Randomisation is done at the judge-level; we have 12 observations (assessments) per judge. Standard errors are clustered at the judge-level.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
240 Judges
Sample size: planned number of observations
240*12 = 2880 observations. Twelve observations for each of 240 judges.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
60 judges per treatment arm including 45 male and 15 female judges. Each does 12 assessments for 720 assessments per treatment arm.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Department of Economics Departmental Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2022-02-14
IRB Approval Number
ECONCIA-21-22-30
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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