Can Information on School Attributes and Assignment Probabilities Direct Search and Choice? Evidence from Choice Platforms in Ecuador and Peru

Last registered on June 24, 2025

Pre-Trial

General Information

Title

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0007122

Initial registration date

March 01, 2021

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

March 02, 2021, 6:40 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated

June 24, 2025, 6:55 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country

Region

Country

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Christopher Neilson

Affiliation

Yale University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Felipe Arteaga

PI Affiliation

UC Berkeley

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Gregory Elaquca

PI Affiliation

Inter-American Development Bank

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Carolina Mendez

PI Affiliation

Inter-American Development Bank

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Thomas Krussig

PI Affiliation

UC Berkeley

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2020-11-27

End date

2021-04-30

Keywords

Behavior, Education

Additional Keywords

School choice, search, information, education

JEL code(s)

D47, D81, D82, D83

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

The main objective of this project is to study how the provision of information regarding available alternatives affects the search and application process of parents with and without non assignment risk on school choice platforms. Previous evidence has documented that there exist heterogeneous beliefs about assignment probabilities and these drive choice application behavior Kapor, Neilson and Zimmerman (2020). In addition, Arteaga, Kapor, Neilson and Zimmerman (2021) provides evidence that biased beliefs of assignment probabilities lead applicants to list too few options and that correcting these beliefs leads applicants to expand their list of options suggesting additional search was conducted in the process. Allende et al (2021) shows evidence of limited awareness of the set of potential options and that information provision on the existence and characteristics of nearby options can change applications and assignments. In this study we add to this literature by testing hypotheses regarding whether providing information about available alternatives, and particularly about the demand and risk of these alternatives, improves the search process of parents. These suggestions are a complement to application risk warning previously tested in the literature with promising results. This serves as a test of whether search is “directed” or “random” and specifically if the design of platforms and the information they provide can shift search and choice behavior. These questions are important as they speak to the importance of the design of information provision on choice and search platforms more broadly.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Arteaga, Felipe et al. 2025. "Can Information on School Attributes and Assignment Probabilities Direct Search and Choice? Evidence from Choice Platforms in Ecuador and Peru." AEA RCT Registry. June 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7122-2.0

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)

The Ministry of Education in Ecuadro and Peru are conducting a pilot of centralized school assignment and choice in Manta and Tacna, respectively. With the support of the IDB and ConsiliumBots, the government implemented a campaign to reach out to parents providing information about available alternatives, and particularly about the demand and risk of these alternatives, improves the search process of parents. The information campaign consist on a report card sent to all the applicants with information about their application. The content of the report card was randmoly varied to result in three types:

- Report card 1: A summary of the schools they included in their application, a report on the risk level of not getting a seat at any school in their current application portfolio, and a recomendation to add more schools to their current portfolio to reduce the risk of having an unsuccessful application.
- Report card 2: Additonal to the report card 1, this card provides information about schools located near to their house not included in the current application.
- Report card 3: Additonal to the report card 2, this card agregastes information about the available seats and the current number of applicants in each school.

Intervention (Hidden)

Intervention Start Date

2021-02-26

Intervention End Date

2021-03-12

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

- The number of schools listed by an applicant.
- Probability of assignment in the platform.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

The inclusion of schools listed or that would have been listed in the personalized report card.
- Probability of editing the application portfolio.
- Probability of editing the rank order of schools in the application portfolio.
- Probability of selecting a school with the characteristic primed in the intervention (schools close to applicant’s house, schools with low demand).

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Applicants will be randomly assigned into three groups, each one receiving one of the three report cards detailes above. Each group will have one third of the sample. Random assignment will be stratified by country, the risk-level of not getting a seat at any school, the grade the parent is applying to, and relevant geographic categories. In Ecuador, the assignment was also stratified by the risk levels provided in the risk report.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer

Randomization Unit

Applicant.

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

1800 applicants in Tacna (Peru) and 1200 applicants in Manta (Ecuador)

Sample size: planned number of observations

1800 applicants in Tacna (Peru) and 1200 applicants in Manta (Ecuador)

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

Peru
Rep. Card. 1: 600
Rep. Card. 2: 600
Rep. Card. 3: 600
Ecuadro
Rep. Card. 1: 300
Rep. Card. 2: 300
Rep. Card. 3: 300

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Unit: number of schools listed by an applicant. SD: 4 MDE: 1 school

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

Princeton Research Integrity and Assurance

IRB Approval Date

2021-02-24

IRB Approval Number

13618

IRB Name

Princeton Research Integrity and Assurance

IRB Approval Date

2021-02-02

IRB Approval Number

13568

Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?

Yes

Intervention Completion Date

March 01, 2021, 12:00 +00:00

Data Collection Complete

Yes

Data Collection Completion Date

April 01, 2021, 12:00 +00:00

Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)

Randomization was at the individual level (no clusters). Among WhatsApp-reached applicants, treatment assignment by arm was approximately:

Ecuador 2021

T1: ~149 applicants

T2: ~141 applicants

T3: ~141 applicants

Peru 2021

T1: 568 applicants

T2: 572 applicants

T3: 568 applicants

Peru 2022

T1: 377 applicants

T2: 380 applicants

T3: 383 applicants

Total WhatsApp-treated and observed sample: 3,279 applicants

Was attrition correlated with treatment status?

Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations

The unit of randomization is the individual applicant (student/family). A total of 4,869 applicants were randomized across three country-year settings:

Ecuador 2021: 2,021 applicants randomized

Peru 2021: 1,708 applicants randomized

Peru 2022: 1,140 applicants randomized

All randomized units were treated. Randomization was conducted at the individual level; there were no clusters.

Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms

The unit of randomization is the individual applicant (student/family). A total of 4,869 applicants were randomized across three treatment arms in three country-year settings, as follows: Ecuador 2021: 676 applicants – Control: Warning only (T1) 673 applicants – Treatment 1: Warning + list of 10 suggested schools (T2) 672 applicants – Treatment 2: Warning + list of 10 suggested schools with information on popularity and congestion (T3) Peru 2021: 568 applicants – Control: Warning only (T1) 572 applicants – Treatment 1: Warning + list of 10 suggested schools (T2) 568 applicants – Treatment 2: Warning + list of 10 suggested schools with information on popularity and congestion (T3) Peru 2022: 377 applicants – Control: Warning only (T1) 380 applicants – Treatment 1: Warning + list of 10 suggested schools (T2) 383 applicants – Treatment 2: Warning + list of 3 suggested schools (T3) All randomized units were treated and observed.

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Abstract

This paper evaluates how new information influences families applica- tions and assignment outcomes in elementary school choice settings. Specifi- cally, using a multi-country RCT based in Tacna, Peru and Manta, Ecuador, we examine the effect of providing personalized information on schooling alternatives and placement risk. We find that applicants who received feed- back on placement risk and a suggestion of new schools add more schools to their applications and were more likely to include recommended schools than other alternatives available. Interestingly, the project implemented in Manta, Ecuador had only marginal effects for all outcomes. The main differ- ence across implementations was the inclusion of outreach and information provision through an additional WhatsApp “warning” in Peru, which was not realized in Ecuador. A lower school density seems to have also been a contributing factor to the results observed in the Ecuadorian context.

Citation

Arteaga, F., Elacqua, G., Krussig, T., Méndez, C., & Neilson, C. (2022). Can Information on School Attributes and Placement Probabilities Direct Search and Choice? Evidence from Choice Platforms in Ecuador and Peru. https://doi.org/10.18235/0004672

URL

http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0004672

Reports & Other Materials

Description

current working paper

Citation

File

Arteaga et al 2025.pdf

MD5: ff2c420e623844b7a1e54e7ea1fdc344

SHA1: e71c58ea2c2dbb64e1b835e9ed6ebe4de6789c97

Uploaded At: June 24, 2025