Table 2 compares the observed shares in each treatment with the expected shares under each hypotheses. Table 2. N Mean 95% CI PG ES UG Our Allocation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Rule T180 27 0.639 0.620 0.658 0.67 0.639 0.500 0.621 – (0.009) 29 0.567 0.552 0.582 0.67 0.583 0.500 0.557 T300 – (0.007) T600 27 0.538 0.519 0.556 0.67 0.541 0.500 0.523 – (0.009) Column (1) above enlists the treatments, and in column (2), we report the number of pairs in each treatment. Column (3) reports the mean share of the high ranked individual observed Y in each of the treatments followed by the standard errors in the parentheses, which in turn are used for the confidence intervals in column (4). Columns (5), (6) and (7) show the expected share for the high ranked subject in each treatment under the and the allocation Y PG, ES, UG rules, followed by a or a , depending on whether observations in the relevant treatment groups are inconsistent or consistent with the allocation rules in question (i.e. the 95% confidence intervals around the observed mean in the given treatment contains the predicted value of the said allocation rule). For example, the entry of 0.67 under the rule in column PG (5), for the treatment T300 means that 67% of the pie should go to agent if the rule Y PG were followed. However, this value is clearly outside the 95% confidence intervals (shown in column 4) around the observed mean share of T300. In other words, this value of 0.67 is significantly different from the observed average of 0.57 in T300. Thus, we reject the hypothesis that the rule explains the observed shares in T300, and represent the same with PG a sign underneath the expected value under the rule. Since each of the columns (5), (6) PG
Table 2 compares the observed shares in each treatment with the expected shares under each hypotheses. Table 2. (1) N (2) Mean (3) 95% CI (4) PG (5) ES (6) UG (7) Our Allocation Rule T180 27 0.639 (0.009) 0.620 – 0.658 0.67 0.639 0.500 0.621 T300 29 0.567 (0.007) 0.552 – 0.582 0.67 0.583 0.500 0.557 T600 27 0.538 (0.009) 0.519 – 0.556 0.67 0.541 0.500 0.523 Column (1) above enlists the treatments, and in column (2), we report the number of pairs in each treatment. Column (3) reports the mean share of the high ranked individual Y observed in each of the treatments followed by the standard errors in the parentheses, which in turn are used for the confidence intervals in column (4). Columns (5), (6) and (7) show the expected share for the high ranked subject Y in each treatment under the PG, ES, and the UG allocation rules, followed by a or a , depending on whether observations in the relevant treatment groups are inconsistent or consistent with the allocation rules in question (i.e. the 95% confidence intervals around the observed mean in the given treatment contains the predicted value of the said allocation rule). For example, the entry of 0.67 under the PG rule in column (5), for the treatment T300 means that 67% of the pie should go to agent Y if the PG rule were followed. However, this value is clearly outside the 95% confidence intervals (shown in column 4) around the observed mean share of T300. In other words, this value of 0.67 is significantly different from the observed average of 0.57 in T300. Thus, we reject the hypothesis that the PG rule explains the observed shares in T300, and represent the same with a sign underneath the expected value under the PG rule. Since each of the columns (5), (6)
PriyankaKothari.docx