Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication

Last registered on September 05, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0003288

Initial registration date

September 04, 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

September 05, 2018, 10:35 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country

Germany

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Raphael Brade

Affiliation

ifo Institute

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Robert Jäckle

PI Affiliation

TH Nuernberg Georg Simon Ohm

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Oliver Himmler

PI Affiliation

Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, University of Erfurt, and University of Goettingen

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2014-10-01

End date

2022-09-30

Keywords

Education

Additional Keywords

Relative Performance Feedback, Higher Education, Randomized Field Experiment, Replication, Selective Information Processing

JEL code(s)

I23, C93

Secondary IDs

Abstract

Feedback can help individuals put their performance into perspective, especially when transitioning into a new environment such as university or a different job. In a randomized ﬁeld experiment we give ﬁrst-year university students normatively framed relativeperformance feedback about their accumulated course credits. We ﬁnd an increase in subsequent performance, but only when the feedback is positive. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show that the improved performance is not driven by unobserved characteristics of those receiving positive feedback, but that it is indeed due to the positive rather than negative nature of the feedback. We administer a replication experiment with the next wave of ﬁrst-year students one year later and reproduce the results. Survey data provides suggestive evidence that positive feedback has an effect on behavior when students underestimate their relative performance, and that consistent with a mechanism of selective information processing, individuals focus on positivefeedback to adjust their beliefs.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Brade, Raphael, Oliver Himmler and Robert Jäckle. 2018. "Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication." AEA RCT Registry. September 05. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3288-1.0

Former Citation

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2015-03-23

Intervention End Date

2022-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Obtained credit points as provided by the student office.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

The GPA as provided by the student office.
The number of attempted exams as provided by the student office.
The number of failed exams as provided by the student office.
Dropout as provided by the student office.
Subjective outcomes (collected in surveys): lecture visits, students’ satisfaction with the study program, life satisfaction, satisfaction with grades; time spent on studying, and stress level.

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Students were randomly assigned to one of the following two conditions:
1) Absolute Feedback: this is the control condition. Students in this condition receive two letters in the mail informing them about their obtained credits in the previous semester.
2) Relative Feedback: this is the treatment condition. These students receive the same information, but the letters also inform them about how well they performed relative to the average student and the student on the 80th percentile. This information is augmented with normative messages of approval for those who obtained at least the average number of credits. For those below the average the approving normative messages are greyed out. We label the different types of feedback as follows: positive (= above average performance + approving normative message) and negative (= below average performance + no approving normative message).
Both groups receive absolute feedback with respect to their obtained GPA.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

randomization done in office by a computer

Randomization Unit

Individual

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

812 students in Experiment I (initial trial)
797 students in Experiment II (replication)

Sample size: planned number of observations

812 students in Experiment I (initial trial) 797 students in Experiment II (replication)

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

405 students in the control group in Experiment I (initial trial)
407 students in the treatment group in Experiment I (initial trial)
398 students in the control group in Experiment II (replication)
399 students in the treatment group in Experiment II (replication)

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB