x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Peers and Motivation at Work
Last registered on September 02, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Peers and Motivation at Work
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001105
Initial registration date
March 07, 2016
Last updated
September 02, 2018 2:30 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Minnesota
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Yale University
PI Affiliation
University of Michigan
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2015-02-02
End date
2016-03-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study comprises two experiments. The first experiment randomly assigns tea-harvesting workers to locations on fields to estimate peer effects in output. The second is an incentivized choice experiment that measures workers' willingness to pay for higher-ability peers.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Brune, Lasse, Eric Chyn and Jason Kerwin. 2018. "Peers and Motivation at Work." AEA RCT Registry. September 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1105-2.0.
Former Citation
Brune, Lasse et al. 2018. "Peers and Motivation at Work." AEA RCT Registry. September 02. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1105/history/33798.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2016-03-07
Intervention End Date
2016-03-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our outcome for the peer effects estimation experiment is the daily log output of tea.

Our key outcome for the incentivized choice experiment is the willingness to pay for higher-ability peers. See the pre-analysis plan for details.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Our peer effects estimation experiment consists of two steps:
1. Random assignment of workers to peers.
2. Using randomly-assigned peers and daily output data to estimate a linear-in-means model of peer effects.

Our incentivized choice experiment consists of three steps:
1. Random assignment of workers to peers. This was implemented starting in late February.
2. A survey containing the incentivized choice experiment to elicit WTP. This begins on March 7, 2016.
3. Workers’s positions are changed to implement the choices for the 10% of people who chose faster peers. This happens immediately after the survey ends, and is done to make the elicited choices incentive-compatible.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer (for random peer assignment).
Randomization done in the field on tablets (for implementation of the incentivized choices with p=0.1)
Randomization Unit
For the first experiment, randomization is within-individual at a level of cycle day.

For the second experiment, randomization is at the individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
999 workers
Sample size: planned number of observations
999 workers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Not applicable – no treatment arms. Each worker is randomly assigned to peers.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan
IRB Approval Date
2015-02-02
IRB Approval Number
HUM00095368
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is 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