Filter Results
35508 results
This paper uses a laboratory experiment to study the effect of the monitoring structure on the play of the infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. Keeping the strategic form of the stage game fixed, we examine the behavior of subjects when information about past actions is perfect (perfect monitoring), noisy but public (public monitoring), and noisy and private (private monitoring). We find that the subjects sustain cooperation in every treatment, but that their strategies differ across the three treatments. Specifically, the strategies under imperfect monitoring are both more complex and more lenient than those under perfect monitoring. The results show how the changes in strategies across monitoring structures mitigate the effect of noise in monitoring on efficiency.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
The data in this collection are social network data drawn from a large-scale field experiment. Theories of human behavior suggest that individuals attend to the behavior of certain people in their community to understand what is socially normative and adjust their own behavior in response. This experiment tested these theories by randomizing an anti-conflict intervention across 56 New Jersey public middle schools, with 24,191 students. After having comprehensively measured every school's social network, randomly selected seed groups of 20-32 students from randomly selected schools were assigned to an intervention that encouraged public stances against conflict at school. The data allowed for comparisons between treatment and control groups, and also provided variables to analyze social networks to examine the impact of social referents. Surveys were conducted at the start and end of the 2012-2013 school year, the year in which the experiment was conducted. The survey data contains social network variables based on the peers with whom the respondent chooses to spend time. Survey data also include respondents' perceived descriptive and prescriptive norms of conflict at the schools surveyed, as well as administrative data on the schools and demographics of respondents. The collection includes one dataset, with 482 variables for 24,471 cases. Demographic variables in the collection include gender, grade, age, height, weight, race/ethnicity, language, household characteristics, and demographic variables obtained from school administrative records.,The researchers posited that theories of human behavior suggest that individuals attend to the behavior of certain people in their community to understand what is socially normative and adjust their own behavior in response. This large-scale field experiment allowed researchers to compare anti-conflict intervention treatment and control groups, and also provided variables to analyze social networks in order to examine the impact of social referents. The study examined peer influence for changing climates of conflict.,This multi-level experiment allowed researchers to evaluate the spread of seed students' anti-conflict stance to their peers within the treatment schools, measured subjectively by student-reported norms and administratively by school-reported disciplinary events. On a school-wide level, the researchers tested whether the influence from this group, and particularly from the social referent seeds, was strong enough to shift perceived social norms and disciplinary events in treatment schools compared with control schools after one year. In the 28 of 56 schools randomly assigned to receive the intervention, the researchers selected a group of students (the seed-eligibles) using a deterministic algorithm designed to represent 15% of the school population, blocked by gender and grade and capped at 64 students (grades ranged from 5 to 8). The researchers randomly assigned 50% of that group (the seeds) to be invited to participate in the anti-conflict intervention, which was implemented over the course of the school year. Within each seed group at each school (on average 26 seeds at each school, for a total of 728 seeds across 28 schools), a random proportion were social referent seeds, meaning they were in the top 10% of their school in the number of connections reported by other students (i.e., indegree). The researchers measured social connections at the school, in which they asked students to report which students they chose to spend time with in the last few weeks. This question was specifically designed to uncover the structure of attention in a social network, and identified social referents as people who were drawing the most attention. A survey was conducted to map the complete social network for all 56 schools before randomization, approximately 3 weeks following the start of school. Each school's entire school body took a survey at the same time on a given day (n = 24,191 students). The social network question, accompanied by a full student roster for the school, asked students to nominate up to 10 students at their school whom they chose to spend time with in the last few weeks, either in school, out of school, or online. In addition to surveys, the researchers tracked behavior using schools' administrative records on peer conflict-related disciplinary events across the entire year. Administrative data were available for 49 of the 56 schools, and attention was restricted to these schools for analyses of conflict-related events.,ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..,Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.,Datasets: DS1: Changing Climates of Conflict: A Social Network Experiment in 56 Schools, New Jersey, 2012-2013,record abstracts,on-site questionnaire,Middle school students in New Jersey public schools.,In collaboration with the New Jersey Department of Education, the researchers sent an email to all public middle schools in New Jersey inviting them to apply to participate in a cost-free research intervention. Over 110 middle schools responded. One factor leading to this enthusiastic response was a New Jersey anti-bullying law that took effect the year before the intervention, which mandated that schools provide anti-bullying programming. From this sample, 60 schools were selected on the basis of their geographic location and loose similarity to other schools. Prior to randomization, schools agreed to participate in all measurement aspects of the program, with a 50% chance of receiving the anti-conflict program (the treatment). Schools were assigned to blocks of four, and randomized to receive the treatment or not within these blocks. Blocks were composed to maximize balance on the following variables: the latitude and longitude location of each school, the average school population as measured by the number of students who took the pre-randomization student surveys, the 5th, 6th, and 7th grade population during the year prior to the study (2011), the percentage of students identified as white, black, and hispanic, the percentage of students identified as having limited English proficiency, and the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch as identified by the New Jersey State Department of Education, and finally the average network clustering coefficient and network density calculated from student network data gathered in the pre-randomization student surveys. Four schools dropped out from the study before the point of randomization, which left the total sample at 24,191 students at 56 New Jersey public middle schools.,
Data Types:
  • Dataset
This study includes restricted data version 2.5, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2.5 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2.5 restricted data file. A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website. Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from: Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024; The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2) ; RAND Documentation Reports page;,ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..,Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Adult Module Version 2.5 Restricted Variables DS2: Parent-Child Module Version 2.5 Restricted Variables DS3: 1990 Census Tract and Block of Residence Version 2.5 Restricted Variables,Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) Series,computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI),computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI),coded on-site observation,cognitive assessment test,face-to-face interview,self-enumerated questionnaire,telephone interview,Households in Los Angeles County Smallest Geographic Unit: Census block,L.A.FANS is based on a stratified random sample of 65 neighborhoods (census tracts) in Los Angeles County, California. Poor neighborhoods were oversampled. In Wave I, an average of 41 households were randomly selected and interviewed within each neighborhood, including an oversample of households with children under 18. Within each household, both adults and children were sampled and interviewed. Each sampled person was interviewed in the first wave and tracked and reinterviewed in the second wave, whether they remained in the neighborhood or moved elsewhere in Los Angeles County. Information on Wave 1 respondents who could not be reinterviewed in Wave 2 was collected from other household members. In the second wave, a fresh sample of households that had moved into the neighborhood in the period between waves was also selected and interviewed. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS, Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the L.A.FANS website.,
Data Types:
  • Dataset
We test expectations-based reference dependence in market experiments with probabilistic forced exchange. Koszegi and Rabin (2006) predict that when the probability of forced exchange increases, individuals cannot expect to stick with the status quo, and should grow more willing to exchange. This mechanism may eliminate and even reverse the "endowment effect" (Knetsch and Sinden 1984; Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990). In a series of experiments with overall 930 subjects, we show some tentative support for the notion that attitudes toward exchange are influenced by the probability of forced exchange. However, the results are sensitive to small changes in experimental design.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
This paper asks whether elite colleges help students outside of historically advantaged groups reach top positions in the economy. I combine administrative data on income and leadership teams at publicly traded firms with a regression discontinuity design based on admissions rules at elite business-focused degree programs in Chile. The 1.8% of college students admitted to these programs account for 41% of leadership positions and 39% of top 0.1% incomes. Admission raises the number of leadership positions students hold by 44% and their probability of attaining a top 0.1% income by 51%. However, these gains are driven by male applicants from high-tuition private high schools, with zero effects for female students or students from other school types with similar admissions test scores. Admissions effects are equal to 38% of the gap in rates of top attainment by gender and 54% of the gap by high school background for male students. A difference-in-differences analysis of the rates at which pairs of students lead the same firms suggests that peer ties formed between college classmates from similar backgrounds may play an important role in driving the observed effects.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), administered by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was created to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other low-income individuals for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand. HPOG programs are expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations. In 2010, the first round of HPOG awards was made to 27 organizations located across 20 states to carry out five-year programs in their areas. The first round of HPOG grant awards is referred to as HPOG 1.0. In 2015, a second round of HPOG grant awards was made to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period. This second round of grants is referred to as HPOG 2.0. HPOG is authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy aims to provide information on program implementation, systems change, outcomes, and impacts. This collection is organized into 11 data parts, including: 3 HPOG National Implementation Evaluation datasets of employers (DS1), grantees (DS2), and management and staff (DS3) surveys; a 15-month follow-up survey dataset (DS4); an analysis file (DS5); 6 Performance Reporting System (PRS) datasets; The PRS is the federal management information system for HPOG grantees that was designed to support participant record and case management, program performance measurement, and program evaluation research. The Participant dataset (DS6) is at the person-level and contains background information on participants at the time of intake into the HPOG program.; The Participant Supplemental dataset (DS7) is at the person-level and contains supplemental information for participants who participated in the HPOG impact evaluation.; The Education dataset (DS8) contains the date and type of remedial pre-training activities of participants during the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training-level, with one row for each educational activity.; The Employment dataset (DS9) contains the date and type of employment development activities of participants during the HPOG program, as well as job characteristics of participants who find employment. This dataset is at the employment activity level, with one row for each employment activity.; The Services dataset (DS10) is at the person-level and contains the date and type of supportive services received by participants from the HPOG program.; The Training dataset (DS11) contains the date and type of vocational training received by participants from the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training level, with one row for each occupational training activity.; Various demographic information, such as age, sex, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.,The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) study's key evaluation questions included: What impacts do HPOG programs as a group have on outcomes of participants and their families?; To what extent do these impacts vary across selected subpopulations?; Which locally adopted program components influence average impacts?; To what extent does participation in a particular HPOG component(s) change the impact?; To what extent do specific program enhancements have impacts, relative to the "standard" HPOG program?;,ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..,Presence of Common Scales: See documentation.,Response Rates: All participants completed the baseline survey. 75.6 percent of the Impact Study sample completed a short-term interview.,Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) Employer Survey DS2: Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) Grantee Survey DS3: Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) Management and Staff Survey DS4: 15-Month Follow-Up Survey DS5: Analysis File Outcomes and Covariates DS6: Performance Reporting System: Participant DS7: Performance Reporting System: Impact Supplemental DS8: Performance Reporting System: Education DS9: Performance Reporting System: Employment DS10: Performance Reporting System: Services DS11: Performance Reporting System: Training,computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI),computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI),face-to-face interview,mixed mode,telephone interview,All participants that enrolled in HPOG are included in the Descriptive Study (N=35,592) All participants randomly assigned are included in the Impact Study (N=13,716) Low-income adults,All participants randomly assigned were included in the Impact Study; All participants were included in the Descriptive Study.,
Data Types:
  • Dataset
The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2015. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.,ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..,Datasets: DS1: 2015 Charges Filed Against Defendants in Criminal Cases in District Court - Terminated Data,Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series,Charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated in United States district court during fiscal year 2015.,
Data Types:
  • Dataset
This project examines whether subtle shifts in language can affect people's endorsement of unfamiliar norms. Across five experiments (main text: N = 800) we test whether people judge behaviors described with generic-you (i.e., "You" that refers to people in general, e.g., "You carry an umbrella in the rain") as more normatively correct than behaviors described with "I" or third-person singular pronouns (i.e., "he" or "she"). Supplementary experiments 1-2 (N = 249) examine other linguistic cues that can also signal whether a given action is general.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
Evaluation Purpose and objectives 4.1 Purpose The purpose of the evaluation is to inform beneficiaries, program staff, management, partners and donors of the initial results of VHW’s 360° integrated model and further establish the current baseline upon which future program contributions will be measured. 4.2 Objectives The specific objectives for the evaluation as stated below: To determine the baseline of standard population health, education and economic wellbeing in the areas of integrated health, food security, education, water and sanitation, gender and community engagement indicators ahead of a more focused programmatic approach. Based on the results, strategize how VHW will contribute toward the development of people in the catchment and disseminate results to other areas within the province.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
This study investigates the determinants of public support for a universal basic income (UBI), using the European Social Survey Round 8 (2016), which is a cross-national survey that asked respondents for the first time whether or not they support a UBI scheme with its specific definition provided. Following the welfare state literature, self-interest and ideology arguments predicting welfare attitudes are employed. In particular, the article focuses on three sets of ideological factors: basic human values relevant to welfare state policies, social ideologies associated with economic disparities, and attitudes towards social benefits and services. The presented evidence shows that young, leftist, and economically vulnerable people who are unemployed or low-income earners are more supportive of UBI. Regarding the predictors of the values and beliefs, those who are in favor of enhancing equality in a broad sense are more likely to support UBI, whereas those who support economic individualism and worry about a lack of work ethic and economic burden imposed by welfare state policies are less likely to support UBI, as expected. However, those who are positive about self-enhancement values and targeted welfare policies for people with the lowest incomes are unexpectedly more supportive of UBI.
Data Types:
  • Dataset
3