IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/beexfi/v23y2019icp75-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing otree_tools: A powerful package to provide process data for attention, multitasking behavior and effort through tracking focus

Author

Listed:
  • Chapkovski, Philipp
  • Zihlmann, Christian

Abstract

With the advent of online subject pools, conducting experiments outside the laboratory has become more popular among the scientific community. Unlike the lab, online and field environments tend to be accompanied by a loss of control. In this article we introduce otree_tools, a concise yet powerful add-on for oTree (Chen et al., 2016). otree_tools provides novel ways by which to measure behaviors that are potentially important in the social sciences, such as attention, multitasking and effort. The software also features a novel method of tracking time through the identification of noise. We demonstrate the utility of otree_tools with the help of experimental evidence. The software substantially increases control of the environment. Moreover, the original metrics can be employed for innovative outcome variables, opening the avenue for new research opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapkovski, Philipp & Zihlmann, Christian, 2019. "Introducing otree_tools: A powerful package to provide process data for attention, multitasking behavior and effort through tracking focus," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 75-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:23:y:2019:i:c:p:75-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635018302119
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2019. "Measuring costly effort using the slider task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Marzilli Ericson, K. M. & White, J. M. & Laibson, David I. & Cohen, J. D., 2015. "Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better Than Delay Discounting Does," Scholarly Articles 30367415, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    3. Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Judging Experimental Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 280-285, May.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. Leandro S. Carvalho & Stephan Meier & Stephanie W. Wang, 2016. "Poverty and Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(2), pages 260-284, February.
    6. Emanuela Lezzi & Piers Fleming & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "Does it matter which effort task you use? A comparison of four effort tasks when agents compete for a prize," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    7. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Editor's Choice Working over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1067-1115.
    8. Christopher F. Chabris & David Laibson & Carrie L. Morris & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2008. "Measuring intertemporal preferences using response times," NBER Working Papers 14353, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Henderson, Austin, 2018. "Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-87.
    10. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna & M. Daniele Paserman, 2005. "Job Search and Impatience," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(3), pages 527-588, July.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Bruggen, Alexander & Strobel, Martin, 2007. "Real effort versus chosen effort in experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 232-236, August.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    15. Leonidas Spiliopoulos & Andreas Ortmann, 2018. "The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 383-433, June.
    16. Keith M. Ericson & John Myles White & David Laibson & Jonathan D. Cohen, 2015. "Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better than Delay Discounting," NBER Working Papers 20948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Elie Ofek & Muhamet Yildiz & Ernan Haruvy, 2007. "The Impact of Prior Decisions on Subsequent Valuations in a Costly Contemplation Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1217-1233, August.
    18. Hugh-Jones, David, 2016. "Honesty, beliefs about honesty, and economic growth in 15 countries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 99-114.
    19. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles D., 2013. "Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 159-174.
    2. Michele Belot & Philipp Kircher & Paul Muller, 2021. "Eliciting time preferences when income and consumption vary: Theory, validation & application to job search," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-013/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Werthschulte, Madeline, 2023. "Present focus and billing systems: Testing ‘pay-as-you-go’ vs. ‘pay-later’," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 108-121.
    4. James Andreoni & Michael Callen & Karrar Hussain & Muhammad Yasir Khan & Charles Sprenger, 2023. "Using Preference Estimates to Customize Incentives: An Application to Polio Vaccination Drives in Pakistan," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 1428-1477.
    5. Zachary Breig, 2020. "Prediction and Model Selection in Experiments," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(313), pages 153-176, June.
    6. Christian König-Kersting & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2023. "Grit, Discounting, & Time Inconsistency," Working Papers 2023-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Ubfal, Diego, 2016. "How general are time preferences? Eliciting good-specific discount rates," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-170.
    8. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," NBER Working Papers 24931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Chapkovski, Philipp & Kujansuu, Essi, 2019. "Real-time interactions in oTree using Django Channels: Auctions and real effort tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 114-123.
    10. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Henderson, Austin, 2018. "Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-87.
    11. Alex Imas & Michael A. Kuhn & Vera Mironova, 2022. "Waiting to Choose: The Role of Deliberation in Intertemporal Choice," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 414-440, August.
    12. Cipriani, Marco & Angrisani, Marco & Guarino, Antonio & Kendall, Ryan & Ortiz de Zarate Pina, Julen, 2020. "Risk Preferences at the Time of COVID-19: An Experiment with Professional Traders and Students," CEPR Discussion Papers 15108, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Janssens, Wendy & Kramer, Berber & Swart, Lisette, 2017. "Be patient when measuring hyperbolic discounting: Stationarity, time consistency and time invariance in a field experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 77-90.
    14. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2020. "Econographics," Working Papers 2020-75, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    15. Aycinena, Diego & Blazsek, Szabolcs & Rentschler, Lucas & Sprenger, Charles, 2022. "Intertemporal choice experiments and large-stakes behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 484-500.
    16. Preuss, Malte, 2021. "Intra-individual stability of two survey measures on forward-looking attitude," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 201-227.
    17. Benndorf, Volker & Rau, Holger A. & Sölch, Christian, 2019. "Minimizing learning in repeated real-effort tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 239-248.
    18. James Andreoni & Christina Gravert & Michael A. Kuhn & Silvia Saccardo & Yang Yang, 2018. "Arbitrage Or Narrow Bracketing? On Using Money to Measure Intertemporal Preferences," NBER Working Papers 25232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Zack Dorner & Emily Lancsar, 2017. "Intrinsic motivation, health outcomes and the crowding out effect of temporary extrinsic incentives: A lab-in-the-field experiment," Monash Economics Working Papers 18-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    20. James Andreoni & Michael Callen & Muhammad Karrar Hussain & Muhammad Yasir Khan & Charles Sprenger, "undated". "Creating Investment Scheme with State Space Modeling ," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1039, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:23:y:2019:i:c:p:75-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-behavioral-and-experimental-finance .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.