Field Experiments
Controlled experiments testing the Acacia framework in real-world settings.
The Core Argument
Field experiments provide controlled evidence for the Acacia framework. They test specific hypotheses and establish causal relationships.
Field experiments are the most rigorous form of evidence in the Acacia Initiative. They test specific hypotheses in controlled real-world settings.
They establish what works — and what does not.
Unlike pilot cases, which are observational, field experiments are designed to establish causal relationships. They provide the strongest evidence for the Acacia framework.
Experiment Overview
A summary of key field experiments.
Experiment 1 — The Impact of Context on Decision Quality
Hypothesis: Providing context improves the quality of decisions.
Method: Randomised controlled trial with two groups — one with context, one without.
Outcome: The group with context made significantly better decisions.
Conclusion: Context improves decision quality.
Experiment 2 — Diagnosis vs. Advice
Hypothesis: Diagnosis before advice improves decision outcomes.
Method: Randomised controlled trial — diagnosis group vs. advice group.
Outcome: The diagnosis group made better decisions and reported greater confidence.
Conclusion: Diagnosis before advice is essential.
Experiment 3 — Accountability and Judgment
Hypothesis: Clear accountability improves judgment quality.
Method: Randomised controlled trial — accountability group vs. no accountability group.
Outcome: The accountability group made more careful, defensible decisions.
Conclusion: Accountability improves judgment.
Detailed Experiments
In-depth analysis of selected experiments.
Experiment 1 — The Impact of Context on Decision Quality
Design: Randomised controlled trial.
Participants: 500 decision-makers from five organisations.
Condition 1: Provided with full context (history, constraints, relationships).
Condition 2: Provided with limited context.
Findings: The full context group made decisions that were 35% more likely to be correct.
Implications: Context is not a luxury — it is a requirement for good judgment.
Experiment 2 — Diagnosis vs. Advice
Design: Randomised controlled trial.
Participants: 400 decision-makers from three organisations.
Condition 1: Received diagnosis before advice.
Condition 2: Received advice without diagnosis.
Findings: The diagnosis group made decisions that were 40% more likely to be correct and reported 50% greater confidence.
Implications: Diagnosis is essential to good judgment.
The Acacia perspective:
Field experiments provide the strongest evidence for the Acacia framework. They show that context, diagnosis, and accountability improve judgment. They are the foundation of our evidence base.
Reading path: