Nudging at scale: Experimental evidence from FAFSA completion campaigns.
Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L.; Denning, J. T., Goodman, J., Lamberton, C., & Rosinger, K. O. (2021). Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.022.
-
examining457,158Students, grades12-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Nudging intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
NSC matched sample - Common Application;
|
82.70 |
82.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample - Large State ;
|
55.10 |
54.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in a 2-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. None |
1 Semester |
NSC matched sample - Common Application;
|
10.20 |
10.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in 2-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample - Large State;
|
24.90 |
23.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in 4-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. None |
1 Semester |
NSC matched sample - Common Application;
|
72.80 |
72.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
NSC matched sample - Common Application;
|
79.30 |
79.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in 4-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample - Large State;
|
31.50 |
31.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample - Large State;
|
49.10 |
49.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in 4-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample - Large State;
|
29.40 |
29.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in 2-year college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample - Large State;
|
21.10 |
20.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Filed FAFSA |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample - Large State;
|
43.00 |
43.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Continuous enrollment for 3 terms |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
NSC matched sample - Common Application;
|
73.80 |
73.70 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 58%
Male: 42% -
Race Other or unknown 47% White 53%
Study Details
Setting
The report studied the impacts of two interventions. The first intervention targeted all lower-income and first-generation high school seniors nationwide who had registered with the Common Application (Common Application study). The second intervention targeted all students in a large state who had applied to college through a state-sponsored portal that allows applications to all the state’s public four-year colleges, as well as to some private institutions and community colleges (Large State study).
Study sample
The Common Application study included 271,365 students, of which 130,151 students in 1,714 schools were in the intervention group, and 141,214 students in 3,681 schools were in the comparison group. The students in the Common Application study sample were students registered with the Common Application and met at least one of three criteria for low socio-economic status. The student sample was 60.1% female, 62.4% White, 65,1% first generation, and 43.2% qualify for free- or reduced-priced lunch. The Large State study involved 185,793 students, of which 70,000 students are in the treatment group and 115,793 students are in the comparison group. The students in the Large State study sample were students who have completed high school and applied for college admission. The student sample was 54.2% female; 46.9% White, 16.7% Black, and 7.7% Asian; and 41.4% Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The Common Application intervention was structured around two campaigns: (1) Fall campaign consisting of two email messages encouraging students to consider college affordability when deciding where to apply, and (2) Winter campaign consisting of six email, text message, and postal messages encouraging students to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The Large State intervention consists of seven emails nudging students to complete the FAFSA. The emails varied in terms of timing, information presentation, and motivational framing.
Comparison Group
In the Common Application study, students in the comparison group received generic emails about financial aid. In the Large State study, students in the comparison group did not receive any services.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).