Teaching and incentives: Substitutes or complements?

Replication data, code, and codebooks for \"Teaching and incentives: Substitutes or complements\" from the project \"Accelerating Changes in Norms about Social Distancing to Combat COVID-19\". Paper Abstract: Interventions to promote learning are often categorized into supply- and demand-side approaches. In a randomized experiment to promote learning about COVID-19 among Mozambican adults, we study the interaction between a supply and a demand intervention, respectively: teaching via targeted feedback, and providing financial incentives to learners. In theory, teaching and learner-incentives may be substitutes (crowding out one another) or complements (enhancing one another). Experts surveyed in advance predicted a high degree of substitutability between the two treatments. In contrast, we find substantially more complementarity than experts predicted. Combining teaching and incentive treatments raises COVID-19 knowledge test scores by 0.5 standard deviations, though the standalone teaching treatment is the most cost-effective. The complementarity between teaching and incentives persists in the longer run, over nine months post-treatment.本数据集包含来自"加速社交距离规范变革以抗击COVID-19"项目的论文《教学与激励：替代还是互补》（"Teaching and incentives: Substitutes or complements"）的复现数据、代码及代码手册。论文摘要：促进学习的干预措施通常可划分为供给侧与需求侧两类方法。在一项针对莫桑比克成年人开展的COVID-19知识学习推广随机试验中，我们研究了两类干预措施的交互效应：供给侧干预为基于精准反馈的教学，需求侧干预为向学习者提供经济激励。理论上，教学与学习者激励既可能互为替代（即相互挤出效应），也可能互为补充（即相互增强效应）。事前受访的专家曾预测，两种干预措施间存在较强的替代关系。与之形成鲜明对比的是，我们发现二者的互补性远超专家的预判。尽管单独实施教学干预的成本效益最高，但将教学与激励干预相结合可使COVID-19知识测验得分提升0.5个标准差。教学与激励间的互补效应在干预后九个月的长期随访中依然存在。