Employer Provided AI-Training: The Role of Worker Characteristics, Training Types and Managers.

Last registered on May 27, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Employer Provided AI-Training: The Role of Worker Characteristics, Training Types and Managers.
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018671
Initial registration date
May 19, 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 27, 2026, 10:08 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

Name
Katrin Huber
Affiliation
University of Potsdam and Berlin School of Economics
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Marco Caliendo
PI Affiliation
University of Potsdam and Berlin School of Economics (BSoE)
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Harald Pfeifer
PI Affiliation
Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB)
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2026-04-01
End date
2027-06-30
Keywords
Education, Gender, Labor
Additional Keywords
firm-provided AI training, human capital investment, inequalities in training provision, gender inequalities, technological change
JEL code(s)
J01, J16, J24
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study analyzes how managers in German firms allocate AI-related training to employees and whether systematic differences arise across worker characteristics. The main outcomes are the probability of training selection and differences by attributes of the training candidate and the training, as well as the role of managerial and firm characteristics. The intervention is a randomized conjoint survey experiment embedded in the BIBB Training Panel 2026. Managers evaluate hypothetical employee profiles with randomly varied attributes and training characteristics, allowing for causal identification of determinants of training allocation. As a complementary secondary component in an additional experimental layer, managers are randomly assigned to one of three information treatments prior to decision-making. This additional intervention is designed to explore how informational contexts may influence training choices. Randomization occurs at the firm, manager, and vignette levels. The population consists of German establishments and managers responsible for training decisions. The sample includes approximately half of the panel’s gross sample (approximately 2,000 firms expected). Eligibility is restricted to managers responsible for training decisions in establishments participating in the BIBB Training Panel 2026. Treatment assignment is fully randomized, ensuring causal inference.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Caliendo, Marco, Katrin Huber and Harald Pfeifer. 2026. "Employer Provided AI-Training: The Role of Worker Characteristics, Training Types and Managers.." AEA RCT Registry. May 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18671-1.0
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)
A conjoint survey experiment (choice experiment) with a complementary information treatment. In a first step, managers of German establishments are randomly assigned a vignette describing two hypothetical training candidates and the characteristics of the training they would undergo. They then share their expectations of how beneficial the training of each candidate would be for the firm and choose one of the two candidates to undertake the training. In a second step, as a complementary feature, managers are randomly assigned an information treatment within the vignette.
Intervention Start Date
2026-04-01
Intervention End Date
2026-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our first primary outcome is the binary choice regarding which of two hypothetical applicants a human resource manager would prefer for the AI training. Our second primary outcome is the manager’s expected benefit for the firm.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The two hypothetical applicants in each choice are characterized by six different features.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Effect-heterogeneity concerning the information treatment, decision makers’ characteristics and firm characteristics.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study implements a randomized conjoint survey experiment embedded in the BIBB Training Panel 2026. Decision-makers in German establishments evaluate a series of hypothetical employee profiles for participation in an AI-related training program. In each choice task, respondents select one candidate and assess expected productivity gains. As a complementary component, respondents are randomly assigned to different information conditions prior to the decision tasks. Randomization occurs at the respondent and profile levels, enabling causal identification of the effects of profile attributes and informational contexts on decision-making. The sample consists of approximately 2,000 managers, each of them making 6 choices.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is carried out by a computer-based randomization.
Randomization Unit
Randomization occurs at multiple levels: (i) respondent level (information treatment), (ii) vignette level (profile attributes), and (iii) firm level (participation in vignette study).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2,000 respondents ( = firm representatives)
Sample size: planned number of observations
approx. 2,000 resulting in 12,000 choices
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approximately equal allocation across three information treatment arms (660–670 respondents per arm).
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