Information Frictions among Firm Recruiters

Last registered on September 05, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Information Frictions among Firm Recruiters
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014131
Initial registration date
August 05, 2024

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
August 06, 2024, 4:08 PM EDT

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

Last updated
September 05, 2024, 12:26 AM EDT

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

Name
Andelyn Russell
Affiliation
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-08-05
End date
2025-01-31
Keywords
Behavior, Firms & Productivity, Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
J320, M510, O150
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
Jobseekers across countries and cohorts value amenities. However, in developing countries, many job descriptions are sparse and thus may not include the full range of amenities that firms offer. In the first part of this project, I partnered with a large Indian job board to analyze whether a lack of amenities on job descriptions forms an information friction. Conducting a data collection exercise and survey experiment with first-time jobseekers, we found that firms have amenities that jobseekers value, but do not include them on job descriptions. In the second part of the project (this experiment), I partner with the job board to examine one reason why valued amenities are missing from job descriptions: firms may not fully be aware of jobseekers’ preferences. We test whether informing recruiters of jobseekers’ preferences can lead them to update their job descriptions with valued amenities.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Russell, Andelyn. 2024. "Information Frictions among Firm Recruiters." AEA RCT Registry. September 05. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14131-2.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
If a recruiter confirms that their firm provides job training to new employees, a customer support agent provides the estimate of how much first-time jobseekers value training in the study context.
Intervention Start Date
2024-08-05
Intervention End Date
2024-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Indicator for whether recruiters update their first job post to describe job training.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
A selection of roughly 50 posts that are updated will be reviewed for keywords which indicate response to the message about training. Once a list of keywords – such as “train”, “coach”, or “workshop” – is collected, all updates will be searched for the list of keywords and any which includes new information with at least one keyword will receive a value of 1 on the indicator variable. We measure this outcome for recruiters’ first job post because the intervention is delivered during platform onboarding procedures.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
- Indicator for whether recruiters update their first job post in any way.
- Conditional on making a subsequent post within 30 days, an indicator for whether recruiters describe job training on at least one of these posts.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
We measure whether recruiters update their first job post because the intervention is delivered during platform onboarding procedures. Given the limited sample size and time horizon, we are likely underpowered to detect treatment effects on subsequent job posts. We will also test for differential shares of recruiters in the treatment and control groups who make subsequent posts.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Background:

In the first part of this project, I partnered with a large Indian job board to analyze whether a lack of detail on job descriptions forms an information friction for jobseekers, preventing them from identifying jobs with amenities that they prefer. We first conducted surveys of recruiters who had posted entry-level white collar jobs in which we asked them to describe four aspects of the job:

- Work format (whether work is completed individually or in a team)
- Job training
- Work schedule
- Transportation support

From the survey results, we found that there is significant variation in these features among entry-level white-collar jobs. Furthermore, most firms that provide these amenities do not list them on job descriptions.

We then elicited jobseekers’ preferences over these amenities through a survey experiment. Analyzing the results, we found that jobseekers who are most likely to be searching for their first job (no experience on their profile and have created accounts within the past 60 days) valued jobs that provided training and transportation support.

Information Experiment:

In this part of the project, we investigate one reason why valued amenities are missing from job descriptions: recruiters might not be fully aware of jobseekers’ preferences. To test this, we conduct an information experiment with recruiters. Because job training is provided by the majority of firms, we test the effect of informing recruiters about jobseekers’ preferences for training. Recruiters who receive a call from the study partner’s customer support team to complete platform onboarding procedures are randomized among two conditions:

- Control: If the recruiter confirms that their firm provides training, the customer support agent simply tells them that they can add training details to their job description. The customer support agent is instructed to provide limited clarification.
- Treatment: If the recruiter confirms that their firm provides training, the customer support agent explains that “You’ll get as many candidate applications as other companies which provide Rs 460 higher salary by updating training details in the job description.” The customer support agent can clarify this statement.

Both conditions are designed to reflect the communication style and operations of the platform’s customer support center.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is conducted using Google’s online coin flip at the start of an agent's work day.
Randomization Unit
Randomization is conducted at the agent-day level.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
The number of clusters depends on the number of agent-days required to reach 300 calls.
Sample size: planned number of observations
300
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
150 recruiters in treatment, 150 recruiters in control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information