Working Paper: NBER ID: w26158
Authors: Kelli A. Bird; Benjamin L. Castleman; Jeffrey T. Denning; Joshua Goodman; Cait Lamberton; Kelly Ochs Rosinger
Abstract: Do nudge interventions that have generated positive impacts at a local level maintain efficacy when scaled state or nationwide? What specific mechanisms explain the positive impacts of promising smaller-scale nudges? We investigate, through two randomized controlled trials, the impact of a national and state-level campaign to encourage students to apply for financial aid for college. The campaigns collectively reached over 800,000 students, with multiple treatment arms to investigate different potential mechanisms. We find no impacts on financial aid receipt or college enrollment overall or for any student subgroups. We find no evidence that different approaches to message framing, delivery, or timing, or access to one-on-one advising affected campaign efficacy. We discuss why nudge strategies that work locally may be hard to scale effectively.
Keywords: nudges; FAFSA; financial aid; college enrollment; randomized controlled trials
JEL Codes: D9; I23; I24
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| nudge interventions (D91) | FAFSA completion (I22) |
| nudge interventions (D91) | financial aid receipt (I22) |
| nudge interventions (D91) | college enrollment (I23) |
| message framing (L96) | campaign efficacy (K16) |
| delivery methods (L87) | campaign efficacy (K16) |
| one-on-one advising (C91) | campaign efficacy (K16) |
| generic messaging (L96) | perceived relevance for students (A21) |