1. Study Break Experiment: Analysis Robb Ferris & Gray Eklund

2. Purpose of the Experiment In an attempt to re-create a study break, we were trying to identify how other’s perception of oneself (“reputation”) influences the decisions that people make in taking a public good (in this case, M&Ms) We attempted to control for reputation by using rounds with anonymous and non-anonymous selection rules Although many factors influence students’ behavior, we wanted to control for this single variable.

3. Our Expectations We expected to see some level of selfish behavior as students took more than their Pareto efficient allocation. As we changed the number of M&Ms to a non-multiple of the number of students, we expected most students to round up to the nearest whole M&M, leaving others with less than the Pareto efficient allocation. In the last set of experiments where the number of M&Ms was not known by the students, we expected to see especially selfish behavior as students couldn’t estimate the Pareto efficient allocation and erred on the side of caution.

4. Results of Experiment – Set 1 OrderRound 1Cumulative 1Round 2Cumulative 2 11155 201813 389821 4615526 5823531 68 536 7334238 8539442 9645547 102470 11855451 12358859 132601 140600 150600 160600 170600 180600 190600 200600 TOTAL60 Notes: Average Selection was 4.62 M&Ms. The mode in Round 1 was 8, while the mode in Round 2 was 5. The mode in Set #1 was lower in Experiment B than in Experiment A. This is consistent with our hypothesis, even though M&Ms were taken faster in Experiment A than in Experiment B, which is not consistent. A student would take more than or the same amount of M&Ms as the student before them 50% of the time.

5. Results of Experiment – Set 2 OrderRound 1Cumulative 1Round 2Cumulative 2 11155 28905 381727 482507 5833512 6639012 7039214 8140822 9444830 10852838 11860846 12868854 13472357 14173865 15275469 160756 170750 180750 190750 200750 TOTAL75 In Set 2, In this set, it seems that students were a little less likely to take M&Ms as fast in experiment B as in experiment A, and M&Ms were taken faster in Experiment A than in Experiment B. Notice the somewhat parabolic curve for Experiment B. This represents the parabolic escalating curve that we were looking for. If we didn’t limit how much each person could carry at 8, we might have seen continuous escalation until all M&Ms were gone. The mode was 8 in both rounds. A student would take more than or the same amount of M&Ms as the student before them 71.4% of the time.

6. Results of Experiments – Set 3 OrderRound 1Cumulative 1Round 2Cumulative 2 18888 208816 38 824 4016529 5723837 6831441 7536849 8844453 9852861 10557566 11461369 12869372 13473375 14578883 15280083 16282083 17082083 181830 190830 200830 TOTAL83 In Set 3, experiment B, the selection of 8 M&Ms was much more frequent than in experiment A. It appears that once the first 2 or 3 students took 8 in experiment B, those following were much more likely to take 8. The mode in both rounds was 8, but the selection of 8 occurred 7 times in round 2 compared to 6 times in round 1. A student would take more than or the same amount of M&Ms as the student before them 58.1% of the time.

7. General Analysis When cascading is prevalent, your reputation is overshadowed by a desire to take as much as the others have taken before you. However, when cascading is not as prevalent, it appeared that reputation was actually causing students to hold back, as in Set #2. When students were able to see how many the students in front of them had taken, they were more likely to take at least as many than to take less (58.1% of the time, students took at least as much). There also may have been something of a “revenge factor” at play. That is, a student who got zero in the first set may have come back in the second set and taken more than they usually would. We also observed students sharing M&Ms with those in the crowd. This is similar to what would be seen in a study break, with friends helping out those who didn’t receive any. In polling after the experiment, it was found that if the students were to make an allocation distribution beforehand without knowing their own allocation, 15 out of 16 people chose to allocate 3 M&Ms to everyone (given total # of M&Ms = 60).

8. Problems/Issues in Experiment Time constraints: we could have used more rounds to collect more data so as to better capture trends. Difficulty in recreating the desire and atmosphere of a study break: - Class is right after lunch for most students - M&Ms aren’t as desirable as some study break food (sushi, pizza etc.) - The sequential format used was not exactly the same as a study break Other general problems with experimental data: - Some students may have lost interest as time went on - Hard to control for all variables (ex: desire for food: some students may not have liked/wanted m&ms and wouldn’t take any regardless of what other students were doing)

9. Conclusions Although some of our data reinforced our hypothesis that reputation does play a factor in students’ decision-making during a study break, we didn’t quite get enough data to truly draw hard conclusions from. It is difficult to create the dynamic atmosphere of a typical study break within the lab. Collection of data slowed down the process somewhat. From what we saw, we think that being able to see the selections of students before you did actually have an influence on your decision. In this sense, there was somewhat of a cascading effect. If given more time and rounds to collect data, and perhaps with a few tweaks to the experimental set-up, we believe our hypothesis may be proven.

10. Thanks!