Barriers to Retraining

Last registered on May 06, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Barriers to Retraining
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018530
Initial registration date
May 01, 2026

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
May 06, 2026, 10:59 AM 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
Bates College

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Maine

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-05-26
End date
2026-06-09
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We implement an online economic experiment to examine workers’ willingness to learn new skills and to identify potential barriers to retraining. The study is conducted via CloudResearch Connect with 500 participants targeted from states which lead in both forest cover and rurality - Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Alabama - to allow us to compare the behaviors of rural, suburban, and urban participants. Participants first engage in a set of tasks in which they encode words using a Caesar cipher. They are then offered the opportunity to engage in a new, more difficult task that involves the acquisition of a new skill, coding in Python. Finally, participants answer a survey about AI attitudes and perceptions as well as answer sociodemographic questions.

This work attempts to better understand how new technology (AI) impacts the existing workforce and whether rurality impacts technology adoption. We also investigate job loss expectations to AI, main concerns of AI (employment impacts, forced retraining, environmental), and perceived skills mismatch.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Goff, Sandra and Caroline Noblet. 2026. "Barriers to Retraining." AEA RCT Registry. May 06. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18530-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The primary intervention in this study is the introduction of a learning opportunity, with or without a piece rate bonus.
Intervention Start Date
2026-05-26
Intervention End Date
2026-06-09

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Outcome 1: Acceptance of new learning opportunity
Outcome 2: Completion of new learning opportunity
Outcome 3: Number of tasks completed correctly
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participant Recruitment:
The online survey experiment will be conducted via CloudResearch Connect. We intend to include 500 participants targeted from states which lead in both forest cover and rurality - Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Alabama - to allow for comparisons across rural, suburban, and urban populations.

Experimental Design Overview:
STEP 1: Consent
STEP 2: Participants complete a set of encoding tasks using a Caesar cipher.
STEP 3: Participants are then asked if they would like to learn a new task - a brief intro to coding that will allow them to encode the words more quickly - or continue to encode manually using a new cipher. Half of the participants receive this learning opportunity with a higher piece rate and half are not offered higher compensation.
STEP 4: Participants either continue to complete the initial task or the new task, depending on their choice
STEP 5: Participants complete a survey re: AI perceptions, confidence, etc.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization to the increased piece rate condition is performed by the Qualtrics software
Randomization Unit
Individual, however, participants are clustered by state and rurality (rural or suburban or urban) before random assignment to the treatment within these clusters to ensure balanced numbers of treated participants in each subgroup
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
500 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
500 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
250 per treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Bates College IRB
IRB Approval Date
2026-03-28
IRB Approval Number
EC3-26-14