|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This study investigates whether the method of inviting students to apply for a university excellence award affects their persistence in completing the multi-stage application. Students at Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga (UNAB) in Colombia are invited via one of three channels: direct invitation (control), peer referral, or faculty referral. The study aims to uncover whether referral sources influence students' commitment, motivation, and overall completion rates (persistence). This study's findings will offer practical insights into optimizing engagement strategies in application processes.
|
After
This study investigates whether the method of inviting students to apply for a university excellence award affects their persistence in completing the multi-stage application. Students at a university are invited via one of three channels: direct invitation, peer referral, or faculty referral. The study explores how these invitation methods influence students' engagement, motivation, and completion rates (persistence) of the application process. Findings will provide insights into how different forms of referrals, i.e., vertical from faculty or horizontal from peers, impact persistence in application processes.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
April 14, 2025
|
After
April 09, 2025
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
April 17, 2025 06:16 AM
|
After
April 17, 2025 06:27 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Participants receive invitations to apply for the Student Excellence Award. They are invited through one of three channels:
1. Faculty Referral – Students are invited because a faculty member recommended them, and informed of this.
2. Peer Referral – Students are invited because a peer (considered for the award) recommended them, and informed of this.
3. Direct Invite (Control) – Students are invited based on their GPA.
All students will proceed through a multi-stage online application designed to mimic a competitive job application process. This includes a quick registration (basic demographics, beliefs, and peer nomination), psychometric assessments with strategic competition tasks, and a timed stress-test involving creative problem-solving.
Completion of each stage is recorded, and dropout rates across steps are analyzed. Data collection includes demographic and performance data (GPA, year of study), survey responses, and performance on psychometric and strategic tasks.
|
After
Participants receive invitations to apply for the Student Excellence Award. They are invited through one of three channels:
1. Faculty Referral – Students are invited by the university because a faculty member recommended them.
2. Peer Referral – Students are invited by the university because a peer (considered for the award) recommended them.
3. Direct Invite (Control) – Students are invited by the university.
The application process involves three stages, each available for up to a week. In each stage applicants must solve tests/tasks and answer different questions. Their participation and responses will be scored. The awards will be assigned among the top scores within those who complete the entire application process.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
April 14, 2025
|
After
April 09, 2025
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Eligible undergraduate students are assigned to receive invitations through direct invitation (based on GPA), peer referral, or faculty referral. Outcomes measured include application completion rates, response quality, and overall engagement.
Participants are assigned to one of three invitation groups:
- Control (Direct Invitation): Receive a standard invitation based on academic criteria.
- Peer Referral Treatment: Receive the invitation and information that a peer recommended them.
- Faculty Referral Treatment: Receive the invitation with information that a faculty member recommended them.
Participants proceed through three application stages designed to assess persistence, engagement, and quality of responses. The experiment evaluates whether the referral channel affects student outcomes differently.
Primary Hypotheses:
H1: Students receiving referrals (peer or faculty) will show higher completion rates compared to students receiving direct invitations.
H2: Faculty referrals will lead to higher completion rates than peer referrals due to perceived authority and prestige.
Secondary Hypotheses:
H3: Referrals (peer or faculty) increase quality of engagement compared to direct invitations.
H4: Faculty referrals will increase application quality and depth of responses relative to peer referrals due to heightened social accountability and recognition.
Participants' completion rates, quality of engagement, and dropout patterns are tracked at each stage. Regression analyses control for baseline demographics, GPA, and year of study. Heterogeneity analysis by academic performance and year of study will also be conducted, as well as by demographics (including gender, social class and place of origin).
|
After
Eligible undergraduate students are assigned to receive invitations through direct invitation (based on GPA), peer referral, or faculty referral. Outcomes measured include application completion rates, response quality, and overall engagement.
Participants are assigned to one of three invitation groups:
- Control (Direct Invitation): Receive a standard invitation based on academic criteria.
- Peer Referral Treatment: Receive the invitation and information that a peer recommended them.
- Faculty Referral Treatment: Receive the invitation with information that a faculty member recommended them.
Participants proceed through three application stages designed to assess persistence, engagement, and quality of responses. The experiment evaluates whether the referral channel affects student outcomes differently.
Primary Hypotheses:
• H1 (Referral Effect): Students receiving referrals (peer or faculty) will have higher completion rates than directly invited students.
• H2 (Faculty vs. Peer Referral): Faculty referrals will have a higher completion rate than peer referrals.
Secondary Hypotheses:
• H3 (Engagement Quality): Referral groups (peer and faculty) show higher engagement quality than the direct invitation group.
• H4 (Referral Mechanisms): Referral information affects completion by increasing perceived recognition, social accountability, or intrinsic motivation.
Participants' completion rates, quality of engagement, and dropout patterns are tracked at each stage. Regression analyses control for baseline demographics, GPA, type of program (virtual or in-person) and year of study. Heterogeneity analysis by academic performance and year of study will also be conducted, as well as by demographics (including gender, social class and place of origin).
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
- Making a referral
- Self-confidence
- Self-perception
- Performance in tests
- Entry into competition
- Creativity
- Time management
|
After
- Score in the application process (ranking)
- Quality of referrals
- Self-confidence
- Self-perception
- Performance in tests
- Entry into competition
- Creativity
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
- Making a referral: Choice to nominate a candidate for the award (only for faculty referrals and direct invites). This also includes the quality of the referral (being above median GPA) and whether the referred peer actually participates in the application process.
- Self-confidence: Accuracy in ranking of own GPA (incentivized)
- Self-perception: Text analysis of description of why the candidate believes he/she was nominated
- Performance in tests: score in ravens test, reading the eye in the mind test, and counting 1’s and 0’s in matrices test. I will look at a single score (combining all tests) and separate scores.
- Entry into competition: Choice of the tournament (instead of piece-rate) payment scheme for the matrices test.
- Creativity: Text analysis to the proposed solution to a problem.
- Time management: Ability to “press continue” on the timed-tests before the timer stops.
|
After
- Score in the application process (ranking): All tasks in the process will be scored. This is the measure of the complete aggregate score.
- Quality of referral: All applicants are invited to refer a peer for the award and informed they will earn points if their nominee has the academic merit to be considered for it. I will if the referral’s GPA is above median and whether the referred peer actually participates in the application process.
- Self-confidence: Accuracy in ranking of own GPA (incentivized), accuracy in ranking own performance in a group competition task.
- Self-perception: Text analysis of description of why the candidate believes he/she was nominated
- Performance in tests: score in ravens test, reading the eye in the mind test, and counting 1’s and 0’s in matrices test. I will look at a single score (combining all tests) and separate scores.
- Entry into competition: Choice of the tournament (instead of piece-rate) payment scheme for the ravens matrices test.
- Creativity: Text analysis to the proposed solution to a problem.
|