scholarly journals Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates

2001 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 681-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Sacerdote
Keyword(s):  
Peer Effects ◽  
Random Assignment

Self-Selection of Peers and Performance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Kiessling ◽  
Jonas Radbruch ◽  
Sebastian Schaube
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Multiple Characteristics ◽  
Framed Field Experiment ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Selection Of

This paper studies how the presence of peers and different peer assignment rules—self-selection versus random assignment—affect individual performance. Using a framed field experiment, we find that the presence of a randomly assigned peer improves performance by 28% of a standard deviation (SD), whereas self-selecting peers induces an additional 15%–18% SD improvement in performance. Our results document peer effects in multiple characteristics and show that self-selection changes these characteristics. However, a decomposition reveals that variations in the peer composition contribute only little to the performance differences across peer assignment rules. Rather, we find that self-selection has a direct effect on performance. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

scholarly journals Peer Effects in the Workplace: Evidence from Random Groupings in Professional Golf Tournaments

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 34-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Guryan ◽  
Kory Kroft ◽  
Matthew J Notowidigdo
Keyword(s):  
Labor Markets ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Soft Fruit ◽  
Rule Out

This paper uses random assignment in professional golf tournaments to test for peer effects in the workplace. We find no evidence that playing partners' ability affects performance, contrary to recent evidence on peer effects in the workplace from laboratory experiments, grocery scanners, and soft fruit pickers. In our preferred specification, we can rule out peer effects larger than 0.043 strokes for a one stroke increase in playing partners' ability. Our results complement existing studies on workplace peer effects and are useful in explaining how social effects vary across labor markets, across individuals, and with the form of incentives faced. (JEL D83, J44, L83)

scholarly journals Academic Peer Effects with Different Group Assignment Policies: Residential Tracking versus Random Assignment

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Garlick
Keyword(s):  
Academic Performance ◽  
South African ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Peer Groups ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Cautionary Note ◽  
Group Assignment ◽  
Random Variation

I study the relative academic performance of students tracked or randomly assigned to South African university dormitories. Tracking reduces low-scoring students' GPAs and has little effect on high-scoring students, leading to lower and more dispersed GPAs. I also directly estimate peer effects using random variation in peer groups across dormitories. Living with higher-scoring peers raises students' GPAs, particularly for low-scoring students, and peer effects are stronger between socially proximate students. This shows that much of the treatment effect of tracking is attributable to peer effects. These results present a cautionary note about sorting students into academically homogeneous classrooms or neighborhoods. (JEL I23, I24, I28, O15, Z13)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document