Tag
cognitive_ability
3 findings
Labour & employmentAbility-Dependent Peer ScreeningHigh-ability original participants offered performance pay selected referrals who scored 0.371 standard deviations higher on cognitive tasks (p < 0.05), whereas low-ability participants showed no statistically significant improvement in referral performance (0.084 standard deviations) because low-ability participants could not accurately predict referral performance.RCTLabour & employmentLow-Ability Foot-in-the-Door EffectCandidates at the 25th percentile of baseline ability gained a 25 percentage point increase in post-intervention employment probability and earned $11.01 more per day. In contrast, candidates at the 75th percentile experienced a 1.5 percentage point decrease in employment probability and earned only $2.20 more per day.RCTLabour & employmentPeer Cognitive Evaluation AsymmetryHigh-ability workers accurately predicted referral puzzle scores (coefficient = 0.190, p < 0.05), corresponding to an 0.8 standard deviation performance difference, whereas low-ability workers showed no statistically significant predictive accuracy (coefficient = 0.025, p > 0.10).RCT