Referring into opportunities IV: Field experiment on reactive help

Last registered on August 06, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Referring into opportunities IV: Field experiment on reactive help
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014138
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.

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-08-05
End date
2024-09-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
In this study, I investigate the role of social networks and biases in access to opportunities at a university setting, where such opportunities require third-party referrals, such as nominations and recommendations. I focus on university students as candidates and faculty members as referrers. Through a field experiment, I explore how these networks influence the request and receipt of referrals, potentially perpetuating biases that disadvantage certain groups in reactive help settings.

In the experiments, students who had been offered a beneficial opportunity (an international training program) are informed that they can participate in the lottery for a valuable prize. The only requirement is to get support from one faculty member from the university. The faculty member will be informed that the student is considered for the lottery because she registered for participating in the training program and also that the reason why the student was invited to the program, which varied by either: their academic merit, their demographics, both, or none. These variations allow me to evaluate how the type of information affects students' likelihood of seeking help, their choice of faculty members, and the likelihood of receiving assistance.

This study complements a previous study on the effect of information on the take-up of educational opportunities (AEARCTR-0013474), where an international training program is offered as an opportunity to students, with the objective of helping develop skills to better attain goals.

Selection for the program focuses on merit (high academic achievement) and identity (low socio-economic status). Targeted individuals are university students to whom the program is offered. Some receive no information about selection (No Info treatment). Others are told they are selected because of who they are, e.g. low SES (ID treatment), because of what they have achieved, e.g. academic merit (Merit Treatment) or both (ID+Merit Treatment).

In this complementary study, I can rely on the data from the previous experiment to evaluate how the signals of selection (which are now required to be disclosed to a faculty endorser) and the likelihood of having completed the training program, impact the choice of seeking help and from whom. Also, data from previous experiments on proactive help allow me to identify proactive helpers, those who chose to make a referral for the offered opportunities. This consistency enables me to examine the relationship between proactive and reactive help. Specifically, I investigate whether faculty members who initiate help in the proactive experiment are also those whom students seek out in the reactive experiment.

The findings from these experiments will provide insights into the presence and extent of biases in referral processes and the effectiveness of awareness interventions in mitigating these biases. I aim to inform strategies for enhancing access to opportunities for underrepresented groups by increasing awareness of potential biases.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Munoz, Manuel. 2024. "Referring into opportunities IV: Field experiment on reactive help." AEA RCT Registry. August 06. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14138-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Students are invited to register to participate in a beneficial opportunity: a lottery for a valuable prize. Students are selected because they previously registered for an international training program. To participate in the lottery, students are required to get an endorsement from a faculty member, and the endorsement reveals the reasons students were selected by for the training program. The reasons about the selection criteria are either (i) high academic merit, (ii) low social class, (iii) both or (iv) none. Students seeking an endorsement only have to indicate who (the faculty member) they want to get support from, and are informed that the organizers of the lottery will contact the endorser and inform them of the selection criteria, and ask for confirmation of their support.
Intervention Start Date
2024-08-05
Intervention End Date
2024-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Help-seeking, selection, help receipt, quality of the candidate
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Help-seeking is measured as the binary choice of requesting a faculty member for an endorsement for the opportunity or not.
Selection is measured as the binary choices of nominating a faculty member as an endorser among all potential endorses a student can seek for help. The choice set is the entire set of connections between a student and all the faculty members she has taken a class with. The selection is the specific faculty member that is chosen, in contrast to the set of faculty members that are not.
I also measure in selection the likelihood of choosing a faculty member that was a proactive helper in previous experiments.
Help receipt is measured as the likelihood that a requested faculty member makes the endorsement and helps the help-seeking student.
Quality of the candidate is measured by the likelihood that the student receiving help (i) started, and (ii) completed all sessions of the training program they had registered for in the previous study.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
I will conduct a randomized control trial (RCT) with 1133 students and four groups, randomized at the level of the individual participant.

103 students in the first treatment arm did not receive any information about the selection criteria , so the message to the endorser will only disclose that they had been selected for the international training program before. 388 in the second treatment arm were informed they were selected because of their low socio-economic background, and this information will be disclosed to the endorser. 309 in the third treatment arm were informed they were selected because of their high academic merit, which is also disclosed to endorser. 333 in the fourth treatment arm were informed they were selected because of their high academic merit and their low socio-economic background, and this is disclosed to endorser.

The experimental design allows me to address the following research questions:
(1) What is the impact of the information on the selection criteria on the likelihood of seeking help?
(2) What is the impact of the information on the selection criteria on the selection of faculty members to request the endorsement from?
(3) What is the impact of the information on the selection criteria on the likelihood of receiving an endorsement?
(4) What is the impact of the information on the selection criteria on the quality of the candidate?
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer. However, there was an error in the code when sending a reminder to students in the initial experiment to register for the training program. This mixed the information about selection and because of the sample is not balanced between treatments.
Randomization Unit
Individual level. I use block randomization to balance individual characteristics of the students such as gender, social class and academic merit (GPA).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1133 students
Sample size: planned number of observations
1133 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
103 students in the condition without information
388 students in the condition disclosing selection is based on social class
309 students in the condition disclosing selection is based on academic merit
333 students in the condition disclosing selection is based on academic merit and social class
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Universidad Autonoma de Bucaramanga
IRB Approval Date
2024-07-09
IRB Approval Number
N/A