| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After December 15, 2020 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After 861 students |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 861 students |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After Control: 286 Treatment 1 (half price contract): 287 Treatment 1 (full price contract): 288 |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After Yes |
| Field Restricted Data Contact | Before | After https://registrar.oregonstate.edu/data-requests |
| Field Program Files | Before | After No |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After December 15, 2020 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After No |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After We design a commitment contract for college students, "Study More Tomorrow," and conduct a randomized control trial testing a model of its demand. The contract commits students to attend peer tutoring if their midterm grade falls below a prespecified threshold. The contract carries a financial penalty for noncompliance, in contrast to other commitment devices for studying tested in the literature. We find demand for the contract, with take-up of 10% among students randomly assigned a contract offer. Contract demand is not higher among students randomly assigned to a lower contract price, plausibly because a lower contract price also means a lower commitment benefit of the contract. Students with the highest perceived utility for peer tutoring have greater demand for commitment, consistent with our model. Contrary to the model's predictions, we fail to find evidence of increased demand among present-biased students or among those with higher self-reported tendency to procrastinate. Our results show that college students are willing to pay for study commitment devices. The sources of this demand do not align fully with behavioral theories, however. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Pugatch, Todd and Schroeder, Elizabeth and Wilson, Nicholas L., Study More Tomorrow. IZA Discussion Paper No. 15367, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4136924 |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4136924 |