How Selectivity Shapes Selection

Last registered on November 21, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
How Selectivity Shapes Selection
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010893
Initial registration date
January 31, 2023

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
February 07, 2023, 11:27 AM EST

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

Last updated
November 21, 2023, 5:55 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Bern

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-12-19
End date
2025-02-28
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Firms seek suitable and diverse candidates at low hiring costs. Stressing selectivity can presumably act as a screening device and lower hiring costs. Ideally, it induces only the most suitable candidates to apply. However, as candidates also differ in risk aversion, competitiveness etc., the effect on the pool of applicants is not clear. We investigate how stressing selectivity affects the pool of applicants – with a special focus on diversity. For that purpose, we collaborate with a bank in Switzerland and intervene during information events for students interested in starting an apprenticeship at that bank.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Schilter, Claudio. 2023. "How Selectivity Shapes Selection." AEA RCT Registry. November 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10893-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2023-02-01
Intervention End Date
2024-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Hypothesis 1: The treatment (emphasis on selectivity) will deter students from applying for the position.
Hypothesis 2: The treatment (emphasis on selectivity) will deter women and children of immigrants from countries that have a lower GDP/capita than the European Union (current IMF estimate for 2022).
We will test these hypotheses one-sided according to the way they are specified above.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
To test whether emphasizing the selectivity of a position deters applicants and alters the composition of applicants, we conduct an RCT in the context of the bank’s information sessions for its commercial (KV), information technology (IT), mediamatics (MM), and Digital Business (DB) apprenticeship positions. The information sessions discuss the application process, applicant qualifications, the content of the apprenticeships, and the work environment at the bank.
The treatment will have four components:
1. Baseline survey: All participating students will take a baseline survey, which asks about basic demographic characteristics, the students’ educational and parental background, perceptions of skill, and baseline beliefs regarding the selectivity of the bank’s positions. Within this survey:
a. The treatment group will receive information on the bank’s selectivity.
b. The control group will receive information on how each week is divided between school days and apprenticeship days. This information is publicly accessible and generally mentioned later during the information event.
2. During the information event, participants will be divided into groups and treatment-participants are again informed about the bank's selectivity.
3. Follow-up survey: At the end of the information session, students will take a follow-up survey, which asks about their experiences that day, impressions of the bank, and knowledge of the bank’s selectivity, and beliefs regarding their qualifications for the apprenticeship. Within the survey:
a. The treatment group will receive information on the bank’s selectivity.
b. The control group will receive information on information sessions held by the bank and the timeline of when students apply to/hear back from the bank. This information is publicly available and previously communicated during the day.
4. Follow-up email: within a few days after the event, each student will receive a personalized email with links to information about the apprenticeships at the bank and where to apply when the call opens. The email to treated students includes two sentences not included to control students that again stress selectivity.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in the office by a computer (using Stata)
Randomization Unit
For events with subgroups (most events), we randomize individuals into these subgroups. Half of the subgroups will receive treatment. For the minority of events that have no subgroups, we randomize on the event level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
14 events with no individual-level (7 per year), the rest of the sample (the vast majority) will have individual-level randomization.
Sample size: planned number of observations
There are 768 slots (unless additional events are added by the bank) in 2023 and similarly many if we can repeat it in 2024. Some students will not show up, some will choose not to participate. Each year, around 625 students will show up and participate.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
7 events without further group division are treated, and so are half of the remaining individuals (656 slots, i.e., around 550 participants that show up).
7 events without further group division are treated, and so are half of the remaining individuals (656 slots, i.e., around 550 participants that show up).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
With 1250 observations (2 years), we have generally a one-sided MDE of 0.14SD (and 55% power for 0.1SD). With 625 observations (1 year), we have a one-sided MDE of 0.15SD with 59% power. According to the bank, roughly two thirds of information event participants apply, i.e., one third does not apply. With 1250 observations, we have a one-sided MDE of 7 percentage points (and 58% power for 5 pp). With 625 observations, we have a one-sided we have a one-sided MDE of 7 pp with 58% power (and 5 pp with 38% power).
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Human Subjects Committee of the Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Information Technology at the University of Zurich
IRB Approval Date
2022-12-15
IRB Approval Number
OEC IRB # 2022-094
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information