| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before April 10, 2009 | After September 30, 2009 |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After 74 workers |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 1800 |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After 34 control, 40 treatment |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before June 19, 2009 | After October 31, 2009 |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Do reciprocal workers have higher returns to employer-sponsored training? Using a field experiment with random assignment to training combined with survey information on workers' reciprocal inclinations, the results show that reciprocal workers reciprocate employers' training investments by higher posttraining performance. This result, which is robust to controlling for observed personality traits and worker fixed effects, suggests that individuals reciprocate the firm's human capital investment with higher effort, in line with theoretical models on gift exchange in the workplace. This finding provides an alternative rationale to explain firm training investments even with the risk of poaching. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Sauermann, J. (2023). Worker reciprocity and the returns to training: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 32, 543–557. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12419 |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After We assess selection bias in estimated returns to workplace training by exploiting a field experiment with random assignment of workers to a one-week training program. We compare experimental estimates of this program with non-experimental estimates that are estimated by using a sample of agents who were selected by management not to participate in the experiment. Our results show that non-experimental estimates are biased, yielding returns about twice as large as the causal effect. When controlling for pre-treatment performance or individual fixed effects, only about one tenth of this bias remains and is even further reduced when applying common support restrictions. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Sauermann, Jan, and Anders Stenberg, "Assessing Selection Bias in Non-experimental Estimates of the Returns to Workplace Training", IZA DP No. 13789] |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13789/assessing-selection-bias-in-non-experimental-estimates-of-the-returns-to-workplace-training |