Gender matters - Performance spillover effects of symbolic recognition at school

Last registered on January 17, 2018
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender matters - Performance spillover effects of symbolic recognition at school
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002676
Initial registration date
January 16, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
January 17, 2018, 7:06 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
Switzerland
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Andrea Essl
Affiliation
University of Bern
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Frauke Bieberstein
PI Affiliation
University of Bern
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2014-05-01
End date
2018-12-31
Keywords
Education, Labor
Additional Keywords
symbolic recognition, performance spillover effects, gender differences, laboratory experiment
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Symbolic recognition can be an efficient and powerful tool for motivating people. Despite much research on ex ante announced symbolic incentives, little is known about the spillover effect of different recognition types in a multitask setting. In this laboratory experiment we examine not only positive but also negative symbolic recognition and its spillover effects. Secondary school students work on two different tasks. In the experimental treatment, students receive unannounced symbolic performance feedback for the first task. We are interested in gender differences for the spillover effect of recognition on performance in the second task.
This experiment is a follow-up study designed to collect more data as suggested by two referees. Experimental design and procedures are the same as in the first study.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bieberstein, Frauke and Andrea Essl. 2018. "Gender matters - Performance spillover effects of symbolic recognition at school." AEA RCT Registry. January 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2676-1.0
Former Citation
Bieberstein, Frauke and Andrea Essl. 2018. "Gender matters - Performance spillover effects of symbolic recognition at school." AEA RCT Registry. January 17. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2676/history/24998
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Between-subject design. The experiment consists of two main tasks, both without any performance-dependent financial incentives. The first task is a simple estimation task (to estimate the number of peas in a bowl borrowed from Falk and Zimmermann 2016). In the control treatment, students directly continue with the second task. In the experimental treatment, the experimenters distribute smiley-stickers to the top third, frowny-stickers to the bottom third and nothing other than the message that they are ranked in the middle to the intermediate third. Participants put the stickers on their sweatshirt and then continue with the second task. In the second task, students cut out flyers from sheets.
Intervention Start Date
2018-01-18
Intervention End Date
2018-01-19

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcome variable is the number of corretly cut out flyer in taks 2 (performance in task 2). We will take into account individual baseline performance. We are interested in two main questions: 1) Do female students perform differently in task 2 following unannounced symbolic performance feedback for task 1 compared to males? 2) Do female (male) students perform differently in task 2 following unannounced symbolic performance feedback for task 1 compared to females (male) in the control?
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Between-subject design. The experiment consists of two main tasks, both without any performance-dependent financial incentives. The first task is a simple estimation task (to estimate the number of peas in a bowl borrowed from Falk and Zimmermann 2016). In the control treatment, students directly continue with the second task. In the experimental treatment, the experimenters distribute smiley-stickers to the top third, frowny-stickers to the bottom third and nothing other than the message that they are ranked in the middle to the intermediate third. Participants put the stickers on their sweatshirt and then continue with the second task. In the second task, students cut out flyers from sheets. This time, in both treatments there is a symbolic recognition program in place (smiley-sticker/frowny-sticker/no recognition) and students are aware of this program.
Prior to the two main tasks, there is a baseline stage of flyer cutting. This stage provides us with a baseline measure of students' ability. After the experiment, students also fill in a questionnaire on demographics.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Random draw
Randomization Unit
individual student
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
165 students
Sample size: planned number of observations
In total about 165 participants (depending on school attendance on the experimental day; about 87 males and 78 females). Pooling with the existing data, this gives about 300 participants.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
About 60 participants in the control treatment, about 105 participants in the experimental treatment. This gives about 35 participants in the no recognition condition of the experimental treatment. About 50% of participants in each group will be female. Pooling with the existing data, this gives about 35 females in the no recognition group and >40 females in the control group (same numbers for males).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The minimum detectable effect is 0.2. This effect size is calculated to have a power of >80% and alpha of 0.05.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials