#57936 | AsPredicted

As Predicted:Can irrelevant markers support coordination? (#57936)


Created:       02/10/2021 05:27 AM (PT)

This is an anonymized version of the pre-registration.  It was created by the author(s) to use during peer-review.
A non-anonymized version (containing author names) should be made available by the authors when the work it supports is made public.

1) Have any data been collected for this study already?
No, no data have been collected for this study yet.

2) What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study?
In our previous paper “Ethnic markers and the emergence of group-specific norms” [Ozaita et al., Scientific Reports 10, 22219 (2020)]we introduced an agent model that simulates populations with two markers irrelevant for payoff. The general hypothesis we are working with is that this coordination game is going to be globally solved using the external information from the subjects. Specifically

Hypothesis 1) A correlation is established between the marker of the opponent and the action the subject chooses, meaning that the final equilibrium strategy for an agent may include different actions depending on the marker of the opponent.

Hypothesis 1a) Homophily, understood as a selection bias towards agents with the same marker, increases the creation velocity of the intra-marker correlation, this is, the strategy for individuals that share marker.

Hypothesis 2) The correlation can only exist if a majority of the group share a preference order such that a coordination outcome is more desirable than an uncoordination one. We say that an outcome is more desirable when it has a higher value in a 1(very pessimistic) to 7(very optimistic) scale.

Hypothesis 2a) Correlation can only be established if the former preference order can be seen as stationary, this is, it does not evolve in time or evolves in a slow time scale.

Hypothesis 3) A correlation is established regardless the size of the group, but its creation velocity is directly proportional to it.

Hypothesis 4) Individuals with a higher degree of norm compliance will arrive at a correlation between opponent's marker and action chosen faster.

Hypothesis 5) Groups with lower overall degree of norm compliance will take longer to evolve correlations between markers and actions.

Hypothesis 6) Individuals will be more influenced by others who share their marker when making decisions.

3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured.
The main variables that we are storing , at every round, are:

All actions and choices made by each subject, as well as her opponent's marker for every choice and her opponent's action.
The personal value assigned to each result of an interaction, in a graduated scale from 1 (very pessimistic) to 7 (very optimistic).
The sequence of choices between yellow and blue for each subject for the norm compliance experiment.
The value answered in the decision problem.

All these variables are going to be registered by the software that we'll use to conduct the experiment. Times between decisions will also be recorded.

4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to?
To test our hypotheses, we will consider two main conditions for the experiment, changing the homophily between individuals with the same marker, and changing the group size.

In the first one, we will consider 12 groups of 10 individuals, where half of the groups will play the experiment with parameteres of homophily e=0 and half with e=0.5 .

In the second one, we will have 12 groups with 20 number of participants and the same two choices for e.

For every treatment, we will conduct a number of rounds of the game that can be done in 30 minutes of experiment duration.

Invitations will be sent to the participants in the IBSEN pool and they will register for only one session at their convenience. No info on what the experiment is will be provided in advance to the pool subjects. Once they are in a session with three groups they will be randomly assigned to one group.

5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis.
We'll conduct exploratory data analyses using data visualization techniques, linear regression analyses, clustering analyses for individual groups as well as all the participants, and correlation analyses.

6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations.
Individuals who fail to provide an answer for three or more rounds, will be considered inactive (an outlier, for practical purposes) and will be excluded from the experiment.

7) How many observations will be collected or what will determine sample size?
No need to justify decision, but be precise about exactly how the number will be determined.

We will recruit participants through the IBSEN subject pool (http://www.ibsen-h2020.eu). We have 2x2 treatments. For the first condition, with 2 treatments, we will use 120 subjects. For the second condition, we will use 240 subjects.

8) Anything else you would like to pre-register?
(e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?)