RECD: June 2024b
Preregistration
Hypotheses
- Managers’ competitive worldview will be associated with the belief
that dominant behavior will harm the relationship with the employee
less, rather than more.
- Managers’ competitive worldview will be positively associated with
choice to behave dominantly toward their employees.
- The relationship between managers’ competitive worldview and choice to behave dominantly will be at least partially explained by the expected impact of that dominant behavior on the relationship with the employee.
Design
This study entails two samples: The manager sample and the employee
sample.
We will start with the manager sample.
Participants will read about a hypothetical situation in which they are
managers in a mid-sized company. There is a tough task that needs to be
done, so they need to assign the task to their employee. The employee’s
performance on the task determines the bonus that the manager receives
(up to 2 dollars). Additionally, they are informed that the employee
also has a 2 dollar pending bonus. The employee’s bonus, though, will be
entirely determined by the manager: They can decide to grant none, some,
or all of the pending 2 dollars to the employee based in whatever way
they wish on the employee’s performance. The employee bonus does not
affect the manager’s bonus at all.
To motivate the employee to do the task, managers can send one of two
messages: A dominant message and a non-dominant message. After reading
both messages, the manager predicts relationship and compliance outcomes
for each message. Then, they choose which message to send. After making
the selection, they indicate whether they believe the employee will
recommend them for an additional paid “good manager” task. Then, they
indicate how much of the $2 pending bonus they wish to grant to their
employee for each rate of possible performance on the difficult
task.
Finally, managers complete a measure of competitive worldview.
For all materials of the manager sample, see the file titled ‘Materials:
Manager survey.’
After collecting the manager sample, we will collect the employee
sample.
Participants will read about a hypothetical situation in which they are
employees in a mid-sized company. There is a task that needs to be done,
so their manager has assigned them to complete the task. They are
informed about the rules of the task and the structure of the bonuses:
The employee’s performance determines the manager’s bonus whereas the
employee’s bonus is determined by their manager (and the manager’s bonus
is unaffected by any amount they award to the employee).
Then, employee participants read the message that the manager chose to
send: Either a dominant or a non-dominant message. After reading the
message, they decide if they want to complete the task (about eight
minutes-long for a chance to earn up to a $2 bonus). If they choose to
complete the task, they are redirected to the task. If they choose not
to complete the task, they are redirected to the end of the
survey.
After completing the task, they are notified of their final score (0-50
points, depending on effort). Then, they indicate their attitude towards
the manager, as well as whether they would like to nominate the manager
to participate in a paid “good manager” follow-up survey. Finally, they
are notified of the manager’s decision about their bonus.
For all materials of the employee sample, see the file titled
‘Materials: Employee survey.’
Analysis plan
- Linear regression: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable;
expected relationship impact of dominant message as an outcome
variable.
- Linear regression: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable;
binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable.
- Linear regression: Expected relationship impact of dominant message
as a predictor variable; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome
variable; expected compliance impact of dominant message as a control
variable.
- Mediation model: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable;
expected relationship impact of dominant message as a mediator; binary
choice of dominant message as an outcome variable.
- All models above - with additional control variables: race, gender, income, education, and age.
Exploratory Analysis
- All models from the analysis plan, but, instead of the continuous
expected relationship impact measure, we will insert the binary expected
recommendation to add the manager as a participant in the “good manager”
follow-up.
- Mediation model: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable;
self-projection of relationship impact of dominant message as a
mediator; expected relationship impact of dominant behavior as outcome
variable.
- Comparison to ground truth | relationship: Competitive worldview as
a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of relationship impact of
dominant behavior as outcome variable. with the addition of the mean
attitude of employees who received dominant messages as ground
truth.
- Comparison to ground truth | “good manager” survey: Competitive
worldview as a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of nomination
in “good manager” survey post-dominant behavior as outcome
variable.
- Comparison to ground truth | compliance: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of compliance (points) post-dominant behavior as outcome variable.
Attention check
But first, let’s see who passed one preregistered attention check.
| att_1 | n |
|---|---|
| 0 | 5 |
| 1 | 296 |
All look good to me. That leaves us with 296 eligible participants.
Demographics
Race
| race | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| asian | 16 | 5.41 |
| black | 42 | 14.19 |
| hispanic | 16 | 5.41 |
| multiracial | 12 | 4.05 |
| white | 208 | 70.27 |
| NA | 2 | 0.68 |
Gender
| gender | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| man | 155 | 52.36 |
| woman | 137 | 46.28 |
| NA | 4 | 1.35 |
Age
| age_mean | age_sd |
|---|---|
| 38.87075 | 13.34411 |
Education
| edu | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| noHS | 3 | 1.01 |
| GED | 87 | 29.39 |
| 2yearColl | 37 | 12.50 |
| 4yearColl | 124 | 41.89 |
| MA | 33 | 11.15 |
| PHD | 11 | 3.72 |
| NA | 1 | 0.34 |
Income
Employment
| employment | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| Full-time | 161 | 54.39 |
| Homemaker | 11 | 3.72 |
| Other | 4 | 1.35 |
| Part-time | 47 | 15.88 |
| Part-time, Homemaker | 2 | 0.68 |
| Part-time, Other | 1 | 0.34 |
| Part-time, Student | 3 | 1.01 |
| Permanently disabled | 6 | 2.03 |
| Retired | 20 | 6.76 |
| RetiredPermanently disabled | 1 | 0.34 |
| Student | 9 | 3.04 |
| Temporarily laid off | 1 | 0.34 |
| Temporarily laid offUnemployedOther | 1 | 0.34 |
| Unemployed | 29 | 9.80 |
Message chosen
Which of the following messages do you wish to send to your
employee?
dom: By now you know the task at hand. It’s time to
get in there and do your absolute best across all rounds. If you don’t
complete it and do it well, you will not get the full bonus.
nondom: Your job in this task is to select the
shapes that match the description. Please make sure you look at them
carefully. It would be great if you can get as many of them right as
possible.
| message_choice | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|
| dom | 84 | 28.38 |
| nondom | 212 | 71.62 |
Predicted selection
Do you think your employee will choose to do the task and have a chance for a bonus of up to $2, depending on your choice? Or will they opt to skip the task and the chance for a bonus?
| message | prediction | N | Perc |
|---|---|---|---|
| dom | do-task | 207 | 69.93 |
| dom | skip-task | 89 | 30.07 |
| nondom | do-task | 260 | 87.84 |
| nondom | skip-task | 36 | 12.16 |
Predicted Performance
If they choose to do the task after receiving your message, how well will they perform? Their performance can range from 0 points up to 50 points (for perfect performance).
Predicted Attitude
What will be the impact of this message on your employee’s attitude towards you?
Projection
If you were an employee and you received the message above from your manager, what would be its impact on your attitudes towards your manager?
Predicted nomination
Do you think your employee will recommend you as a participant in this “good manager” paid follow-up survey?
Punish decision
For each level of their performance below, please indicate what bonus you would like them to receive. You can select between 0 and 200 cents for each. 200 cents is the full $2.00.
Competitive Worldview
1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree
1. It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times
2. Life is not governed by the “survival of the fittest.” We should let
compassion and moral laws be our guide [R]
3. There is really no such thing as “right” and “wrong.” It all boils
down to what you can get away with
4. One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look
someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly
5. It is better to be loved than to be feared [R]
6. My knowledge and experience tell me that the social world we live in
is basically a competitive “jungle” in which the fittest survive and
succeed, in which power, wealth, and winning are everything, and might
is right
7. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do
anything unfair to someone else [R]
8. Basically people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for
one’s own benefit
9. Honesty is the best policy in all cases [R]
10. One should give others the benefit of the doubt. Most people are
trustworthy if you have faith in them [R]
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81
Correlations
is_dom: dummy-coded message chosen (0 = nondom; 1 =
dom).
attitude: predicted impact of the message on employee’s
attitude towards the manager.
proj: impact of the manager on the participant if they
participant was the employee.
pred_nom: predicted nomination for “good maanger”
survey
comp: score the employee will get in the task if sent
this message.
This looks frkn beautiful. but i don’t want to get ahead of myself - we’ll see in the models below.
Analysis
Model 1
Linear regression: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; expected relationship impact of dominant message as an outcome variable.
Without controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.66 | [2.06, 3.27] | 8.63 | 294 | < .001 |
| CWV | 0.42 | [0.21, 0.63] | 3.89 | 294 | < .001 |
With controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.25 | [1.11, 3.38] | 3.90 | 280 | < .001 |
| CWV | 0.42 | [0.20, 0.64] | 3.68 | 280 | < .001 |
| Age | 0.01 | [-0.01, 0.02] | 1.13 | 280 | .257 |
| Gender man | -0.09 | [-0.47, 0.29] | -0.46 | 280 | .646 |
| Race white | -0.47 | [-0.91, -0.03] | -2.12 | 280 | .035 |
| Income num | 0.07 | [-0.01, 0.16] | 1.81 | 280 | .071 |
| Edu num | 0.04 | [-0.13, 0.22] | 0.48 | 280 | .629 |
Model 2
Linear regression: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable.
Without controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.02 | [-0.14, 0.18] | 0.24 | 294 | .808 |
| CWV | 0.10 | [0.04, 0.15] | 3.31 | 294 | .001 |
With controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | -0.17 | [-0.48, 0.14] | -1.07 | 280 | .287 |
| CWV | 0.10 | [0.04, 0.17] | 3.30 | 280 | .001 |
| Age | 0.00 | [0.00, 0.01] | 1.34 | 280 | .181 |
| Gender man | 0.02 | [-0.08, 0.13] | 0.42 | 280 | .675 |
| Race white | -0.01 | [-0.13, 0.11] | -0.09 | 280 | .930 |
| Income num | 0.01 | [-0.01, 0.03] | 1.04 | 280 | .297 |
| Edu num | 0.00 | [-0.05, 0.05] | 0.00 | 280 | .998 |
Model 3
Linear regression: Expected relationship impact of dominant message as a predictor variable; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable; expected compliance impact of dominant message as a control variable.
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.28 | [0.24, 0.33] | 11.78 | 293 | < .001 |
| Scaleattitude dom | 0.12 | [0.06, 0.17] | 4.29 | 293 | < .001 |
| Scalecomp dom | 0.09 | [0.04, 0.15] | 3.45 | 293 | < .001 |
With controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.20 | [-0.02, 0.42] | 1.79 | 279 | .075 |
| Scaleattitude dom | 0.12 | [0.06, 0.18] | 4.14 | 279 | < .001 |
| Scalecomp dom | 0.09 | [0.04, 0.15] | 3.30 | 279 | .001 |
| Age | 0.00 | [0.00, 0.00] | 0.33 | 279 | .744 |
| Gender man | 0.05 | [-0.05, 0.15] | 0.94 | 279 | .350 |
| Race white | 0.02 | [-0.09, 0.13] | 0.35 | 279 | .729 |
| Income num | 0.00 | [-0.02, 0.02] | 0.12 | 279 | .908 |
| Edu num | 0.00 | [-0.04, 0.05] | 0.17 | 279 | .864 |
wowow. looking good so far.
Model 4
Mediation model: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; expected relationship impact of dominant message as a mediator; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable.
Without controls
a = 0.42 (p = 0)
b = 0.09 (p = 0)
direct = 0.1 (p = 0.001)
indirect = 0.06 (p = 0.038)
With controls
Ran it. Hard to show here with controls. Effects hold. We’re killing it. Mediator explains about a third of the variance.
Exploratory Analysis
“Good manager” survey
All models from the analysis plan, but, instead of the continuous expected relationship impact measure, we will insert the binary expected recommendation to add the manager as a participant in the “good manager” follow-up.
Model 1
Linear regression: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; expected nomination in follow-up for dominant message as outcome.
Without controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.03 | [-0.14, 0.21] | 0.37 | 294 | .709 |
| CWV | 0.14 | [0.08, 0.20] | 4.42 | 294 | < .001 |
With controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | -0.12 | [-0.45, 0.22] | -0.69 | 280 | .490 |
| CWV | 0.14 | [0.08, 0.21] | 4.29 | 280 | < .001 |
| Age | 0.00 | [0.00, 0.01] | 0.52 | 280 | .602 |
| Gender man | 0.01 | [-0.10, 0.12] | 0.19 | 280 | .847 |
| Race white | 0.08 | [-0.05, 0.21] | 1.28 | 280 | .200 |
| Income num | 0.01 | [-0.01, 0.03] | 0.88 | 280 | .380 |
| Edu num | -0.01 | [-0.06, 0.05] | -0.24 | 280 | .807 |
wow that’s pretty cool.
Model 2
Linear regression: expected nomination in follow-up for dominant message as a predictor variable; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable; expected compliance impact of dominant message as a control variable.
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.15 | [0.09, 0.21] | 4.75 | 293 | < .001 |
| Nompred dom | 0.34 | [0.24, 0.43] | 6.88 | 293 | < .001 |
| Scalecomp dom | 0.10 | [0.06, 0.15] | 4.29 | 293 | < .001 |
With controls
| Predictor | \(b\) | 95% CI | \(t\) | \(\mathit{df}\) | \(p\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.07 | [-0.14, 0.28] | 0.64 | 279 | .521 |
| Nompred dom | 0.33 | [0.23, 0.43] | 6.54 | 279 | < .001 |
| Scalecomp dom | 0.10 | [0.05, 0.15] | 4.10 | 279 | < .001 |
| Age | 0.00 | [0.00, 0.00] | 0.61 | 279 | .541 |
| Gender man | 0.04 | [-0.06, 0.13] | 0.75 | 279 | .451 |
| Race white | -0.04 | [-0.15, 0.07] | -0.70 | 279 | .487 |
| Income num | 0.00 | [-0.02, 0.02] | 0.34 | 279 | .734 |
| Edu num | 0.01 | [-0.04, 0.05] | 0.34 | 279 | .731 |
cool.
Model 4
Mediation model: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; expected nomination in follow-up for dominant message as a mediator; binary choice of dominant message as an outcome variable.
Without controls
a = 0.14 (p = 0)
b = 0.38 (p = 0)
direct = 0.1 (p = 0.001)
indirect = 0.04 (p = 0.108)
With controls
wow. this completely explains away the relationship. this nomination measure is a damn good mediator. hmm, is it a problem that this is asked after their made their choice? we could say that it’s just justification of their choices. Especially given the distribution saw in the “measures” part of this doc. It’s not a perfect measure. Might be more useful when we compare to ground truth, becaue there we can look only at managers who ended up choosing the dominant message.
Projection
Mediation model: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable; self-projection of relationship impact of dominant message as a mediator; expected relationship impact of dominant behavior as outcome variable.
a = 0.32 (p = 0.004)
b = 0.88 (p = 0)
direct = 0.42 (p = 0)
indirect = 0.14 (p = 0.007)
A LOT of projection going on.
Ground truth: Attitudes
Comparison to ground truth | relationship: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of relationship impact of dominant behavior as outcome variable.
Ground truth: Rec for “good manager” survey
Comparison to ground truth | “good manager” survey: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of nomination in “good manager” survey post-dominant behavior as outcome variable.
Ground truth: Rec for “good manager” survey
Comparison to ground truth | “good manager” survey: Competitive worldview as a predictor variable and over/under-estimate of nomination in “good manager” survey post-dominant behavior as outcome variable.