| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Trial Status | Before in_development | After completed |
| Field Last Published | Before December 20, 2016 08:26 AM | After July 24, 2018 01:30 PM |
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After July 03, 2017 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After 160 cricket teams + 461 "pure control" individuals |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 1261 men |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After 461 "pure control" individuals 800 assigned to cricket leagues, of which: 280 had homogeneous-caste team 52 had 1 other-caste on their team 174 had 2 other-castes on their team 180 had 3 other-castes on their team 114 had 4 other-castes on their team Or alternatively, of 800 assigned to cricket leagues: 8 had 35-40% of opponents from other-caste 62 had 40-50% 112 had 50-60% 321 had 60-70% 179 had 70-80% 122 had 80-90% 1 had 90-100% |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After No |
| Field Program Files | Before | After No |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After July 28, 2017 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After No |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Integration is a common policy used to reduce discrimination, but different types of integration may have different effects. This paper estimates the effects of two types of integration: collaborative and adversarial. I recruited 1,261 young Indian men from different castes and randomly assigned them either to participate in month-long cricket leagues or to serve as a control group. Players faced variation in collaborative contact, through random assignment to homogeneous-caste or mixed-caste teams, and adversarial contact, through random assignment of opponents. Collaborative contact reduces discrimination, leading to more cross-caste friendships and 33% less own-caste favoritism when voting to allocate cricket rewards. These effects have efficiency consequences, increasing both the quality of teammates chosen for a future match, and cross-caste trade and payouts in a real-stakes trading exercise. In contrast, adversarial contact generally has no, or even harmful, effects. Together these findings show that the economic effects of integration depend on the type of contact. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Lowe, Matt (2018) “Types of Contact: A Field Experiment on Collaborative and Adversarial Caste Integration,” Working Paper. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://economics.mit.edu/files/14259 |