RESEARCH ARTICLE

PEER EFFECTS IN COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTS:

FIELD EXPERIMENTS ON INFORMATION PROVISION
1
AND INTERVENTIONS
Zhuoxin Li
Carroll School of Management, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue,
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 U.S.A. {zhuoxin.li@bc.edu}

Gang Wang
Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, 42 Amstel Avenue,
Newark, DE 19716 U.S.A. {gangw@udel.edu}

Harry Jiannan Wang

Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, 42 Amstel Avenue,
Newark, DE 19716 U.S.A. {hjwang@udel.edu}

Prior studies of social-norms interventions have focused on nudging behavior in noncompetitive settings. This
research evaluates such interventions in competitive environments, for example, a class with a competitive
grading policy. Field experiments on a learning management system show that providing descriptive infor-
mation about peers’ behavior has mixed effects in reducing procrastination and improving performance
outcomes. Specifically, the effects are moderated by individual characteristics and contextual variables. First,
peer information interventions are more effective for males, and the effects are stronger in a male-majority
environment than in a female-majority environment. These findings differ from prior studies of social-norms
interventions conducted in noncompetitive settings, in which females are found to be more responsive to inter-
ventions. Gender differences in our competitive settings can be explained by males’ and females’ differential
preferences for competition: males are more competitive-oriented and thus are more responsive to peer infor-
mation in competitive environments. Second, we find that individuals who are in great need of interventions,
that is, those with poor past behavior and performance, are also more likely to benefit from peer information
interventions, suggesting that peer information interventions motivate positive change. This study highlights
the heterogeneous effects of peer information interventions and has implications for targeted interventions.

Keywords: Peer information, peer effects, social norms, social comparison, gender differences, nudging,
procrastination, digital interventions, randomized field experiment, learning management systems (LMS)

Introduction1 activities. For instance, health and fitness apps such as Lose
It! and MyFitnessPal help individuals to plan their nutrition
Individuals use a variety of personal applications and enter- and exercise programs, monitor and keep track of progress,
prise systems for work, learning, entertainment, and other and learn about the activities of other members. In an anal-
ogous fashion, online learning management systems (LMS)
such as Canvas and BlackBoard create an IT-mediated envi-
1 ronment for the teaching and learning process, where students
Bin Gu was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Ling Xue served as
the associate editor. get access to course materials, complete assignments online,

DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2021/16085 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1 pp. 163-191/March 2021 163
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
and receive performance feedback once the teacher posts
assignment grades. These information systems have led to the
accumulation of detailed data on individuals’ behaviors and
outcomes. There is an opportunity to analyze these data to
learn about individual behavior, understand what behavioral
patterns are associated with superior or unsatisfactory out-
comes, and, ultimately, design targeted interventions to
improve individual performance. For instance, such interven-
tions may involve nudging behavior and performance
improvement by disclosing information about peers (Cialdini
and Goldstein 2004). Prior studies of social-norms interven-
tions have focused on nudging individual behavior in non-
competitive settings. However, much is unknown about the
effectiveness of such interventions in competitive environ-
ments; for example, individuals competing for a higher
ranking on a fitness app’s leaderboard, students in a class-
room with a ranking-based grading policy, employees within
a department competing for performance-based bonuses, etc.
This research investigates targeted interventions in the context
of online LMS. LMS are an integral part of higher education,
with millions of students spending a significant amount of
their time every week with these systems (Dahlstrom et al.
2014). The wide adoption of LMS in almost every college
has motivated teachers to consider digital interventions to
improve the learning process. Such digital inventions take
advantage of rich behavioral data about students’ learning
activities recorded in system logs (Lam et al. 2012). For
instance, Canvas keeps track of students’ browsing histories,
clickstream data, and assignment submission records. These
fine-grained data are available at both individual and aggre-
gate levels, which allow teachers to track each student’s
academic performance relative to their peers. Furthermore,
such detailed data are also immediately available for targeted
experimentation or gamification to improve students’ learning
behaviors and academic performance (Liu et al. 2017; Wang
et al. 2017).
We focus on interventions of a specific type of individual
behavior: procrastination. Poor study habits such as procras-
tination are among the major antecedents of unsatisfactory
academic performance for college students (Ariely and
Wertenbroch 2002). A recent survey indicates that over 87%
of college students procrastinate, particularly when it comes
to doing their coursework or assigned readings (StudyMode
2014). The absolute amount of procrastination is also signi-
ficant, with students reporting that it typically occupies over
one-third of their daily activities, often enacted through
sleeping, playing, watching TV, or browsing social media
feeds (Pychyl and Sirois 2016). Students recognize procras-
tination as being harmful and foolish, and over 95% of
procrastinators wish to reduce it (O’Brien 2002).
164 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021
Previous attempts to reduce procrastination in college classes
have used different approaches. For example, Lamwers and
Jazwinski (1989) design a number of intermediate deadlines
and impose these deadlines for the completion of coursework.
Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) examine another approach of
requiring students who delayed their work to meet with the
teacher. Although demonstrated effective in experimental
settings, these interventions are costly to implement because
they require significant changes to the current curriculum
design or require extra responsibilities for the teachers.
In this research, we designed peer information interventions
through LMS to reduce procrastination in a classroom setting
where students’ class ranking affects their final grade. Peer
information reveals the prevalence of certain behaviors in a
population, such as the number (or the percentage) of students
in the class who have already submitted an assignment. This
type of descriptive information may shape individuals’ beliefs
about what others are doing and thus can motivate their own
change to conform to socially appropriate behavior (Cialdini
and Goldstein 2004) or to achieve a superior position vis-à-vis
others (Garcia et al. 2013). Compared to existing procras-
tination reductions through teacher interventions (e.g., Ariely
and Wertenbroch 2002), peer information interventions have
the appeal of being able to be seamlessly integrated into LMS.
Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in laboratory tests,
peer information interventions have had mixed success in
changing behavior in field contexts, with some studies
showing boomerang effects (Perkins et al. 2005; Schultz et al.
2007). The specific contexts and populations for which these
interventions are effective are still not clear (Silva and John
2017). In the context of college classrooms, the critical ques-
tions of interest to educators are whether and under what
conditions providing peer information will yield positive out-
comes, such as improved comprehension and higher academic
performance. Answers to these questions, together with the
detailed individual-level data from LMS, have the potential to
improve student performance through targeted interventions.
We investigate the effectiveness of peer information through
a build–evaluate approach (Hevner et al. 2004). Specifically,
we first developed a computer program (an add-on for
Canvas) that automatically retrieves real-time data about each
student from the system logs of Canvas, computes descriptive
summary statistics (descriptive peer information), and iden-
tifies individuals to receive treatments. We then conducted a
set of field experiments with undergraduate students in the
northeastern United States. Our computer program randomly
assigned subjects into different treatment groups to receive
interventions. At the end of the experiments, we collected
data from Canvas to evaluate whether and when peer infor-

mation interventions are effective in promoting behavioral
change (i.e., reducing procrastination) and improving
academic outcomes (i.e., achieving a higher grade).
Our field experiments reveal that peer information interven-
tions reduce procrastination behavior and increase individual
performance (i.e., achieving a higher grade). However, the
effects of peer information interventions are moderated by
individual characteristics and contextual variables. Sur-
prisingly, peer information interventions are more effective
for males than females. In addition, the effects are also
stronger in a male-majority environment than a female-
majority environment. The experiments also show that
individuals who are most in need of interventions, that is,
those with poor past performance (previously receiving a
lower grade) and bad past behavior (previously procras-
tinating more), are also more likely to benefit from the inter-
ventions, suggesting such interventions motivate positive
change.
This research extends the literature of peer information inter-
ventions to competitive settings. Prior studies have focused
on peer information interventions in noncompetitive settings
(e.g., reusing towels in a hotel room), in which an individual’s
performance does not interfere with others’ performance.
Therefore, peer information interventions motivate behavior
change due to social conformity (Cialdini and Goldstein
2004). Since females are more socially tuned, they would be
more likely to respond to such interventions. In competitive
settings, providing peer information may induce comparison
concerns, enhance the perceived competitiveness of the envi-
ronment, and thus motivate individuals’ own behavior change
to achieve a superior position vis-à-vis others (Garcia et al.
2013). In contrast to the prediction from the social con-
formity theory, our results show that males are actually more
likely to respond to peer information interventions due to
social comparison. Our findings show that peer information
interventions in a competitive setting motivates males more
strongly than females because males are more competitive-
oriented.
The findings from this study have implications for the design
of data-driven, targeted interventions to promote healthy
behavior and improve performance outcomes. Providing peer
information may help reduce procrastination for college
students, but the effects depend on individual characteristics
and the contextual environment. To achieve effective inter-
ventions, educators may consider gender differences, gender
composition, and the individual’s behavior trajectory and past
performance. For instance, peer information interventions
may target males in a male-majority environment because
these individuals are more likely to benefit from such treat-
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
ments. Peer information interventions can also target
individuals with poor past behavior and performance, the
individuals most in need of and benefitting more from inter-
ventions. The peer information interventions feature we
developed can be built into LMS and can be used for classes
throughout the entire institution.
Literature Review and
Hypothesis Development
In this section, we review prior studies on procrastination and
its measurement. We also discuss the literature related to peer
effects, gender differences, and interventions for behavior
change. We then develop the hypotheses on the effects of
providing peer information on procrastination mitigation.
Procrastination and Measurement
Procrastination is defined as the delay in the beginning or
completion of an intended task (Ferrari 1992). Prior studies
have recognized procrastination as self-regulation deficiency
or failure, for example, lack of motivation and weak impulse
control (Arvey et al. 2006; Schouwenburg et al. 2004).
Often acknowledging procrastination as an irrational delay,
individuals expect the outcome to be worse because of the
delay (Steel 2007). Procrastination in academic contexts, in
particular, is a severe problem among students (Kim and Seo
2015). For example, male students tend to use regulated
strategies less effectively than female students, and are more
likely to procrastinate (Karatas 2015; Özer et al. 2009).
Prior studies have mostly measured procrastination based on
self-assessment questionnaires. However, in these self-
reported surveys, students tend to over-report their grades and
exaggerate their procrastination (Kim and Seo 2015). Thanks
to the adoption of LMS, detailed data on student behavior
(e.g., clickstream data) have now enabled researchers to
create objective metrics for students’ learning habits. Prior
studies have used the start time for specific tasks as indicators
of procrastination (Cerezo et al. 2017; Rotenstein et al. 2009;
You 2016).
Procrastination Interventions
The prevalence of procrastination and its negative effects are
well recognized. Educators and researchers have attempted
to help students overcome procrastination. Extant intervent-
ions mostly take the form of therapeutic programs (e.g.,
MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 165
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
helping procrastinators build self-regulatory skills and self-
efficacy) to establish better habits and overcome procras-
tination (van Eerde and Klingsieck 2018). A few applied
studies have attempted to reduce procrastination. For
example, Lamwers and Jazwinski (1989) design different
arrangements of deadlines and find that frequent deadlines
reduce procrastination and improve student grades compared
to a fully self-paced arrangement. Ariely and Wertenbroch
(2002) discuss another approach to decrease procrastination
by requiring students who delayed their work to meet with the
teacher. Although proved effective to some extent, the inter-
ventions to reduce procrastination in the literature, are not
without limitations. Typically, a deadline imposed by the
teacher involves the threat of another punishment (e.g., failing
an assignment or being forced to meet with the teacher) if the
desired academic behavior is not performed by the specified
date. Perrin et al. (2010) point out that “improved studying
due to an intervention of this kind would appear to be main-
tained by negative reinforcement” (p. 465) in the form of
avoiding some additional teacher-imposed punishment.
Furthermore, these interventions can be costly to implement
because they either require significant changes to curriculum
design or demand extra responsibilities from the teachers
(e.g., additional time to meet with students who procras-
tinated).
Our study investigates an alternative intervention that relies
on the revelation of descriptive peer information to students,
which does not interfere with a teacher’s course schedule.
The feature of peer information notification we developed can
be built into LMS and used for classes throughout the entire
institution. Several field experimental studies have inves-
tigated student behavior on MOOC platforms, but their focus
is on content contribution (Baek and Shore 2020) or assign-
ment completion (Huang et al. 2018) rather than learning
outcomes in a classroom setting (the completion rate is around
97%, and thus less of a concern in our setting). The objective
of our research is to identify when peer information interven-
tions work (identifying moderators that determine hetero-
geneous treatment effects) and how they work (identifying the
mediator that leads to grade improvement).
Effects of Peer Information: Social
Conformity and Social Comparison
Policymakers are increasingly interested in the potential of
leveraging peer effects to nudge individual behavior (Peng et
al. 2017; Qiu and Kumar 2017). While much is unknown
about peer information interventions through LMS, several
studies have looked into the effect of peer information in
other contexts, such as stimulating prosocial behavior (Huang
et al. 2019), reducing alcohol consumption (Lewis and
166 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021
Neighbors 2004; Perkins 2002), and promoting sustainable
environmental behavior (Schultz et al. 2007).
Prior studies have focused on peer information interventions
in noncompetitive settings (e.g., reusing towels in a hotel
room), in which an individual’s performance does not inter-
fere with others’ performance. In noncompetitive settings,
peer information interventions motivate behavior change due
to social conformity (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). In com-
petitive settings, providing peer information may induce
social comparison—the tendency to self-evaluate by com-
paring oneself to others (Garcia et al. 2013). The social cues
from descriptive information may shape individuals’ beliefs
about what others are doing, enhancing the perceived com-
petitiveness of the environment, and thus can motivate an
individual’s own behavior change to achieve a superior
position vis-à-vis others (Garcia et al. 2013).
Evidence for the success of peer information interventions has
been mixed. Although some studies appear to confirm the
effectiveness of the peer information interventions, other
studies have failed to produce substantial changes in behavior
(Clapp et al. 2003; Granfield 2005). It is still not clear for
which contexts and populations these interventions are effec-
tive (Silva and John 2017). In fact, some studies indicate that
peer information interventions may backfire; they have
actually increased undesirable behaviors and misperceptions
they set out to decrease (Perkins et al. 2005; Wechsler et al.
2003; Werch et al. 2000). For instance, providing peer
information (for example, the fraction of other employees in
the company who participate in the 401(k) plan) may decrease
the enrollment of nonparticipants due to discouragement from
upward social comparisons (Beshears et al. 2015). Also,
Hashim et al. (2017) find that random provision of informa-
tion about others’ actions is no different than not providing
information, suggesting the need for targeted interventions.
Hypotheses Development
Effects of Peer Information
Individuals use information about their peers to determine the
most appropriate course of action in a given situation
(Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Cialdini and Trost 1998).
Providing peer information may create a sense of urgency
(Michael 1991) and produce a salience effect (Leland et al.
2019) that focuses the attention of participants on the targeted
action. In competitive settings, disclosing descriptive infor-
mation about other students’ progress may also encourage
social comparisons, making the competitive environment
more salient to those who received the information (Garcia et
al. 2013). Competition effects may motivate students to start

earlier (and spend more time on the assignment), hoping to
achieve a higher grade compared to their peers.
Peer information about other students’ progress may motivate
procrastinators to reduce procrastination and start working on
an assignment earlier than they typically would. Such
positive behavior change may be associated with performance
improvement for several reasons. First, starting the assign-
ment earlier grants students more time to understand
expectations and to acquire the knowledge and skills needed
to solve the problems in the assignment. Second, early
starters may also seek help from teaching assistants or the
instructor—they can go to office hours when they are stuck
with difficult questions. In contrast, procrastinators may find
themselves short of time and resources to complete a quality
submission before it is due. Therefore, reducing student pro-
crastination may lead to better performance outcomes (Ariely
and Wertenbroch 2002). We thus hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a). Peer information interventions reduce
student procrastination.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b). Peer information interventions
increase student performance.
The Moderating Role of Gender
and Gender Composition
The effects of peer information interventions are very likely
to be individual- and context-specific (Lu et al. 2016). This
section discusses how gender and gender composition moder-
ate the effectiveness of peer information interventions.
Gender: Gender differences and their impacts on economic
and social outcomes have attracted increasing attention
(Ahuja and Thatcher 2005). The literature suggests that
females are more socially attuned and thus more cooperative
(Stocks et al. 2009). For example, Frank et al. (1993) find
that females are significantly more cooperative than males in
prisoner’s dilemma games. In contrast, males are prone to
exhibit stronger individualism (Kashima et al. 1995). Males
were found to exhibit significantly more aggressiveness than
females (Brooks 1982). Furthermore, males prefer competi-
tion more than females. Gneezy et al. (2003) let participants
solve computerized mazes in different competitive settings.
They find that males are more strongly motivated by com-
petitive incentives.
While prior studies suggest females are more likely to respond
to social cues in noncompetitive settings, it is not clear
whether males or females are more responsive to peer infor-
mation in competitive settings. The two forces discussed
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
above may drive the gender effects in opposite directions. On
one hand, females may be more likely to respond to the social
cues because they are more socially attuned (Gordon et al.
2000). On the other hand, males are more likely to be
motivated by a competitive environment induced by peer
information (Ruble et al. 2006; Weber et al. 2004). Given
prior findings in the literature and the specific context we
study, we lean toward the prediction that, in our setting, male
students are more likely to opt into a competitive setting
induced by the peer information they received (Gneezy et al.
2003). As a result, providing descriptive peer information can
motivate them to work on the assignment early to achieve a
better grade compared to others. We, therefore, propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a). The effect of peer information
interventions is stronger for males than females.
Gender Composition. The effects of peer information are
very likely to be context-specific. In particular, this section
discusses how the gender composition of the reference group
moderate the effectiveness of peer information interventions.
Individuals’ behavior and performance depend not only on
their own gender but also on the gender of people with whom
they interact (Gupta et al. 2013). Groups of different gender
compositions may reveal distinct idiosyncrasies emerging
from the interactions among group members. For example,
groups with a higher female-to-male ratio may reveal more
“feminine” personality and dynamics. In a study of a business
competition game, Apesteguia et al. (2012) observe that all-
female teams are less aggressive than mixed-gender or all-
male teams in running their businesses. All-female teams
compete less aggressively in pricing and invest more in social
sustainability initiatives. In a dictator game setting, Dufwen-
berg and Muren (2006) find that female-majority groups are
more generous and egalitarian.
Gender composition may influence the behavior of group
members across gender. Lavy and Schlosser (2011) find that
an increase in the proportion of female students in the class-
room improves both male and female students’ cognitive
outcomes. Such academic gains are mediated through
decreased classroom disruptions and improved inter-student
and student–teacher relationships. Lee et al. (2014) investi-
gate the impact of school and classroom gender composition
on student achievement. They find that male students
attending single-sex classes within coed schools score below
male students in mixed-gender classes. Interestingly, class-
room or school gender composition does not affect the out-
comes of female students (Lee et al. 2014), which suggests
that gender composition has disproportional effects on male
students’ behavior.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 167
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
Following the findings in the literature, we expect an environ-
ment with more females to reveal more feminine personality
and dynamics (Apesteguia et al. 2012; Dufwenberg and
Muren 2006). Students, including male students, may per-
ceive an environment of a higher female-to-male ratio less
competitive and more cooperative. Thus, compared to a
male-majority environment, male students in a female-
majority class may respond less aggressively to the peer infor-
mation they receive. (Dewan et al. 2017; Lee et al. 2015;
Zhang et al. 2017). We, therefore, hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2b (H2b). The effect of peer information inter-
ventions is stronger in a male-majority environment than in
a female-majority context.
The Moderating Role of Past
Behavior and Performance
The effect of peer information interventions is also likely to
be moderated by an individual student’s past behavior and
performance. Specifically, we expect the effect of peer infor-
mation interventions will be stronger for students with
relatively poor past behavior and low past performance.
Descriptive information about desirable behavior by peers
provides a reference point, with which people are likely to
conform (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). With such a cue in
mind, an individual can measure the appropriateness of their
own behavior by how far away they are from the descriptive
information of their reference group (Schultz et al. 2007).
The discrepancy between peers’ and his own behavior may
motivate an individual to determine the most appropriate
course of action in a given situation (Cialdini and Goldstein
2004; Cialdini and Trost 1998).
Providing peer information induces social comparison con-
cerns (Garcia et al. 2013) and the desire to achieve or main-
tain a better relative position among others, which increases
perceived competitiveness especially for those with lower
prior performance. While high-performing individuals can
also be responsive to interventions because they are more
capable of improving themselves, the effects from peer infor-
mation interventions are possibly weaker for these individuals
because they are already more self-motivated, even without
interventions. In sum, individuals who realize they are below
peers are more likely to exert extra effort to catch up, whereas
those who find they are above are less likely to respond posi-
tively. We, therefore, propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). The effect of peer information inter-
ventions is stronger for individuals who have poor past
behavior and past performance.
168 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021
Research Method
Experimental Setting
We designed and implemented a set of randomized field
experiments with Canvas, a widely adopted LMS in the
United States. The subjects are students of undergraduate
courses in business analytics using Excel and other tools.
Each course has multiple sections taught by different teachers.
The reasons for choosing such courses are threefold. First,
the size of each section of the class is relatively large so that
we can assign different treatment conditions to students
within the same section. Second, different sections of the
course are highly comparable: they used the same core
syllabus and curriculum, and all used the Canvas site. Third,
assignments in these courses require considerable efforts from
the students. More details related to the courses, the assign-
ments, and sample questions are presented in Appendix E.
We developed a computer program that automatically
retrieves real-time information about each student from the
system log of Canvas, computes descriptive statistics of
student progress in the reference group (descriptive peer
information), and identifies individuals to receive interven-
tions. Specifically, as an assignment deadline approached
(e.g., due in a few days), the computer program compiled a
list of students who had not started working on the assignment
(i.e., not yet downloaded the data file for the assignment).
The computer program then randomly assigned subjects into
different treatment groups. Students received these messages
via email and were also notified when they logged into
Canvas. We designed and executed three complementary
studies, summarized in Table 1.
Studies I and II were conducted in classes with a competitive
grading policy where a student’s final letter grade depended
on her/his class ranking (see grading policies in Appendix E).
Standard experiments leveraging peer information consider all
individuals in a class section as the reference group and pro-
vide descriptive statistics based on the observed number in the
group. We adopted this design in Study I. However, this
experimental design is subject to one identification issue
when exploring the role of the contextual environment: there
is no variation in gender composition within a section.
Increasing the number of classes/sections could not fully ad-
dress this issue because doing so would introduce an
additional degree of heterogeneity at the section level. There-
fore, we explored an alternative design. In Study II, students
were randomly assigned to small study groups before working
on the individual assignment. In the experiment, students still
received descriptive peer information (as in Study I), but the
reference group is the study group they were in rather than the
entire class. All experimented assignments in this research
 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 1. Experimental Design

Study I Study II Study III
Experiment A course that had a non-ranking final
Courses that had a ranking-based final grade policy
Context grade policy
Experiment Group-Level Peer Info + Manipulation of
Section-Level Peer Info Group-Level Peer Info
Design Competition
Add on top of Study II: create variations
Baseline design from the Create variations in gender in competitiveness (with vs. without
Objective
literature composition ranking-based grading policy) for the
experimented assignment.
“Assignment 3 is due in 4 “Assignment 3 is due in 4
Control Condition No Message
days.” days.”
“Assignment 3 is due in 4 “Assignment 3 is due in 4
T1: “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.”
days. X% of students in days. X% of students in
Treatment T2: “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. X%
your class have started your group have started
Condition(s) of students in your group have started
working on this working on this
working on this assignment.”
assignment.” assignment.”
Assignment
Assignment with a
Manipulation of without a ranking-
— — ranking-based
Competition based grading
grading policy
policy
Total # Courses 2 2 1 1
Individual Assignments Individual Assignments
(Course I-1: Excel (Course II-1: Excel
Assignment Individual Assignments
modeling questions; modeling questions;
Format (Excel modeling questions)
Course I-2: Analytics Course II-2: Analytics
questions) questions)
Total # Sections 6 4 5 6
Total # Groups — 39 67 80
Total Class Size 446 199 213 255
Total # Subjects
136 71 49 57
in Control
Total # Subjects
120 63 102 116
in Treatment
Notes: More details related to the courses, the assignments and sample questions are in the Appendix E.

are individual assignments. Students were required to com-
plete them independently.
In Study III, we used a different course without a ranking-
based grading policy for the final letter grades (a student’s
final grades depend on which bucket her/his final score falls
into). However, we manipulated the grading policy for the
experimented assignment so that students in the competitive
conditions receive a final assignment score that is determined
by their ranking in the class (see Table E1 and grading
policies in Appendix E), whereas students in the benchmark
conditions do not follow a ranking-based policy. We
elaborate on the three studies below.
Study I (Section-Level Peer Information). This standard
peer information intervention considers all students in the
class section as the reference group. As shown in Table 2,
students within a class section were randomly assigned to a
control group to receive messages without peer information
or the treatment group to receive messages with peer
information computed at the section level (i.e., “X% of
students in your class have started working on this
assignment”).
Study II (Group-Level Peer Information). At the
beginning of the semester, students were randomly assigned
to a four- to six-person group. As shown in Table 3, students
within a class section were randomly assigned to a control

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 169

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 2. Treatment Conditions with Section-Level Peer Information (Study I)

Condition Message
Control T0 (Reminder only): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.”
Treatment T1 (Reminder with Peer Info): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. X% of students in
(Class-Level Peer Info) your class have started working on this assignment.”

Table 3. Treatment Conditions with Group-Level Peer Information (Study II)

Condition Message
Control T0 (Reminder only): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.”
Treatment T1 (Reminder with Peer Info): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. X% of students in
(Group-Level Peer Info) your group have started working on this assignment.”

Table 4. Treatment Conditions with Manipulation of Competition (Study III)

Condition Message
TNR0 (No Message)
TNR1 (Reminder only): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.”
Non-ranking based grading
TNR2 (Reminder with Peer Info): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. X% of students in
your group have started working on this assignment.”
TR0 (No Message)
TR1 (Reminder only): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.”
Ranking-based grading
TR2 (Reminder with Peer Info): “Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. X% of students in
your group have started working on this assignment.”
Notes: Right before sending out the messages, our computer program retrieved and analyzed system log data to compute the variable X, the
percent of students who had started working on the assignment.

group to receive messages without peer information or the
treatment group to receive messages with peer information,
where the descriptive information comes from the group (i.e.,
the percent of students in their group who have started
working on the assignment).
Study III (Manipulation of Competition). Study III builds
on Study II with additional manipulation of the competitive
environment (Table 4). Students in the competitive condi-
tions received a final assignment score that is determined by
their ranking in the class, whereas students in the benchmark
conditions did not follow a ranking-based policy.
Variables and Measurement
Dependent Variables. We constructed two dependent
variables to measure the outcomes of experimental conditions
(Table 5). The first dependent variable is related to a
student’s procrastination behavior, which is measured by
StartTime, a continuous variable recording the length of time
(hours) between two events: the time a student started
working on the assignment (indicated by downloading the
necessary data file for the assignment) and the time the
assignment was due (Cerezo et al. 2017; Rotenstein et al.
2009; You 2016).2 A smaller value of StartTime indicates
that the student started late and had experienced more
procrastination, whereas a larger value suggests that the
student started early. The second dependent variable is
Grade, which is the points a student received from the assign-
ment. We normalized this grade by the total credits for the
assignment such that Grade is a percentage ranging from 0 to
100. Both StartTime and performance Grade are of interest
to educators: StartTime captures students’ behavior change
(the extent of procrastination) due to the treatments, and such
behavior improvement may lead to a higher performance
outcome as measured by Grade.
2
Appendix F provides more evidence on the validity of using StartTime as an
indicator of procrastination.

170 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 5. Notation and Variable Definition

Variables Definitions
Dependent Variables
Hours that a student started working on the assignment (indicated by downloading
StartTime
the necessary data file) before the due time.
Percentage of points that a student achieved over the total points of the
Grade
assignment.
Other Variables (Student Characteristics and Environmental Variables)
Male The sex of a student: 1 for male, and 0 for female.
The StartTime from the previous assignment. A measure of past procrastination
StartTime_Prev
tendency.
Grade_Prev The Grade from the previous assignment. A measure of past performance.
Section_Male_Composition Percentage of male students in a section.
Group_Male_Composition Percentage of male students in a group (Study II and III).

Other Variables. To investigate the heterogeneous treatment
effects for students, we obtained gender information for each
student coded by the binary variable, Male. We also con-
structed two important variables related to students’
procrastination tendency and past performance as observed in
the previous assignment: (1) StartTime_Prev: hours that a
student started working on the previous assignment before the
corresponding due time, and (2) Grade_Prev: a student’s
grade from the previous assignment. In addition, we calcu-
lated the percentage of male students, Section_Male_
Composition, to measure gender composition in a section.
We also calculated the percentage of male students in a group
Group_Male_Composition for Study II and III.
as the reference group (i.e., “X% of students in your class
have started working on this assignment”). Randomization
tests in Table A1 of Appendix A show that there are no
significant differences between the treatment group and the
control group with respect to preexperiment factors and
individual traits.
Before statistically testing the hypotheses, we first visualize
some of the patterns observed in Study I. As shown in Figure
1a, peer information interventions overall have positive ef-
fects on procrastination behavior. However, from Figure 1b,
peer information interventions have a positive effect on male
students’ procrastination behavior, but there is a seemingly
negative effect for female students.

Effects of Providing Peer Information Gender Differences

on Behavior Change
This section presents the effects of peer information interven-
tions on reducing student procrastination. We discuss the
intervention effects on performance outcomes in the next
section.
Study I (Section-Level Peer Information)
As discussed earlier (Table 1), Study I follows the standard
design of peer information interventions and treats all students
in the class as the reference group. Students were randomly
assigned to the control group to receive a reminder message
or the treatment group to receive a message with reminder and
descriptive peer information computed using the whole class
In a set of regression analyses with data for Study I, we esti-
mated the treatment effect of peer information interventions
and the moderating role of gender (Table 6). The results of
Model 1 show that peer information interventions do not have
a significant main effect on students’ procrastination
behavior. That is, H1a is not supported for male and female
combined. Further, the results of Model 2 show that the
treatment effect for female students is negative (-9.43, not
statistically significant, p > 0.10), and that the estimation of
the interaction term of Treatment*Male is 18.41 and statis-
tically significant. Therefore, the marginal treatment effect
for male students is 8.98, indicating that peer information
interventions have a stronger positive effect on male students’
behavior than female students as reflected by an earlier
starting time of 9 hours.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 171

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

(a) Impact on Starting Time (b) Impact on Starting Time by Gender

Figure 1. Effects of Peer Information Interventions on Student Behavior

Table 6. Moderating Effects of Gender

All
DV: StartTime Model 1 Model 2 Males Female
42.88*** 56.52*** 30.43* 20.37
Intercept
(15.56) (16.49) (17.70) (45.06)
1.37 -9.43 9.57* -8.52
Treatment
(4.43) (6.78) (5.33) (7.65)
-15.01**
Male – – –
(6.38)
18.41**
Treatment*Male – – –
(8.92)
0.04* 0.04* 0.02 0.09*
StartTime_Prev
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05)
0.09 0.08 0.23 -0.04
Grade_Prev
(0.15) (0.15) (0.18) (0.27)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 256 256 150 106
R-squared 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.11
Notes: Standard errors are reported in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

Observing patterns of differential gender effects in response
to peer information, we further conducted subsample analyses
by gender. The treatment effect for male students is 9.56 and
statistically significant (p = 8), whereas -8.52 and not
statistically significant (p = 0.27). Figure 2 illustrates the
heterogeneous treatment effects between male and female
students. The interventions have a positive effect in moti-
vating male students to start earlier, whereas a negative effect,
although not statistically significant, was observed for female
students. Thus, peer information interventions had a stronger
effect for male students than female students, that is, H2a is
supported.
Evidence of the Moderating Role
of Gender Composition
In this section, we report the preliminary observations of
heterogeneous treatment effects with respect to the role of
gender composition in a class. Specifically, we divided the

172 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021


Figure 2. Moderating Effects of Gender (Based on Model 2 in Table 6)
samples receiving treatments into three groups of roughly
equal size based on the male composition in the class (i.e.,
Section_Male_Composition): Low (<42%, female-dominant),
medium (45%–60%, balance), and high (>60%, male-
dominant). As shown in Figure 3a, in a female-dominant
class, the treatment effect is negative. When the gender
composition environment becomes more male-dominant, the
treatment effect becomes more salient. Figure 3b further
shows that for male students, the treatment effect increases as
male composition increases. These results provide pre-
liminary support for H2b.
A potential concern with the preliminary results in Figure 3 is
that confounding factors other than gender composition may
also contribute to the observed effects, which weakens the
causal interpretation of gender composition. In Study II
below, we implemented an alternative experimental design to
create exogenous variations in gender composition and for-
mally tested the moderation effect of gender composition.
Study II (Group-Level Peer Information)
Causal estimation of the effect of gender composition requires
randomization in gender composition, which is challenging,
if not impossible, at the class/section level because students
self-select to enroll into a class/section. Randomization at the
group-level, however, is possible because instructors often
assign students to work on group assignments. In Study II,
we explored an alternative design, in which students received
descriptive peer information with their randomly assigned
study group as the reference group. This experimental design
creates random variations in gender composition within a
class/section, which helps avoid having to conduct the experi-
ments with a large number of classes, where we run into the
identification challenge caused by cross-class heterogeneity.
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
The detailed experimental procedure works as follows. At the
beginning of the semester, students were randomly assigned
to a group of four to six members.3 This randomization
strategy generated 39 groups across four sections, with a
group male composition in the range between 0% and 100%
(see the details in Table B1 of Appendix B). Before parti-
cipating in the experiment (an individual assignment),
students had worked together and completed several group
assignments. As shown in Table 3, students were randomly
assigned to the control group to receive reminder messages
without peer information or the treatment group to receive
messages with the descriptive peer information calculated
from their study group (i.e., “X% of students in your group
have started working on the assignment”). Randomization
tests in Table A2 of Appendix A shows that there are no
significant differences between the treatment group and the
control group with respect to preexperiment factors and
individual traits.
Experiment results in Table 7 show that male students in
male-majority groups are more responsive to peer information
interventions and reduce procrastination (by 12.03 hours),
whereas other individuals are not. This finding is consistent
with the prediction from Hypothesis H2b. Consistent with
previous results in Study I, female students did not show a
treatment effect from the interventions. We formally test the
H2b by pooling data from Study II and III, which allows us to
test the interaction effect with a larger sample size. Empirical
results (Table B2 in Appendix B) show that the treatment
effect of peer information for male students in a male-
majority group is stronger than that for male students not in a
male-majority group (19.70, p = 0.06). Hence, H2b is
supported.
3
For each class/section, we use the following procedure/constraints to assign
students into groups: (1) create five-member groups, as many as possible; (2)
no group should have less than four students or more than six students.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 173
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

(a) Effects with Respect to Male Composition (b) Effects with Respect to Male Composition by
Gender

Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Gender Composition

Table 7. Effects of Group-Level Gender Composition

Males Females
Male Majority Non-Male Majority Female Majority Non-Female
DV: StartTime Group Group Group Majority Group
3.77 38.15 59.24** 26.74
Intercept
(18.22) (20.43) (23.03) (28.67)
12.03* 14.72 0.09 -10.79
Treatment
(6.10) (13.15) (7.06) (12.62)
0.12* -0.05 0.05 0.15
StartTime_Prev
(0.06) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09)
0.17 0.02 0.01 0.14
Grade_Prev
(0.16) (0.32) (0.16) (0.23)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 56 20 41 17
R-squared 0.25 0.18 0.21 0.58
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

Study III (Manipulation of Competition)
As described earlier, Study III was conducted in a different
course without a ranking-based grading policy for the final
letter grades. This course, with 11 sections, allowed us to
extend the design in Study II by manipulating the competitive
environment for the experimented assignment. Specifically,
students in a section were first randomly assigned into the
competition condition (with a ranking-based grading policy)
or the benchmark condition (without a ranking-based grading
policy). Within the competition/benchmark condition, the
experimental design is identical to that of Study II, that is,
students in treatment conditions received reminder message
with peer information, whereas students in control conditions
received reminder messages without peer information.
Experiment results show that gender differences exist for
students in ranking-based conditions (Table 8a) but are absent
for students in non-ranking-based conditions (Table 8b).4
Male students are more responsive to peer information and
start working on the assignment earlier in the ranking-based
setting. These findings provide direct evidences that males
prefer competition more than females. Therefore, males are
more likely to opt into a competitive setting induced by the
descriptive peer information they received (Gneezy et al.
2003). Females are not responsive to interventions, especially
4
In Study III, we do not have data on students’ prior behavior and perfor-
mance because the experiment was conducted at the beginning of the
semester.

174 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 8. Peer Information in Ranking Versus Non-Ranking Based Setting

(a) Ranking Based Setting
All
DV: StartTime Model 1 Model 2 Male Female
32.18*** 44.47*** 34.03*** 24.57
Intercept
(8.46) (10.06) (10.18) (15.00)
11.67** -0.45 17.73** -1.47
Treatment
(5.69) (9.07) (7.39) (8.71)
-18.31**
Male – – –
(8.26)
18.99*
Treatment*Male – – –
(10.59)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 116 116 71 45
R-squared 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.27
(b) Non-Ranking Based Setting
All
DV: StartTime Model 1 Model 2 Male Female
42.86*** 51.95*** 37.05*** 49.55***
Intercept
(7.38) (8.65) (10.72) (9.93)
5.70 -1.82 10.26 -1.17
Treatment
(5.75) (9.37) (7.35) (9.01)
-17.33**
Male – – –
(8.36)
12.20
Treatment*Male – – –
(11.75)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 102 102 65 37
R-squared 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.16
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

when the percentage value X is not sufficiently large because
social conformity occurs only at high prevalence level (we
further investigate this issue in the next section).
Effects of Peer Information Interven-
tions on Performance Outcome
Effects of Peer Information Interventions
on Student Grades
In this section, we further investigate the impact of peer
information interventions on students’ performance, that is,
Grade. Similarly, we first visualize some of the interesting
patterns observed using pooled data from the three studies.
As shown in Figure 4a, peer information interventions overall
have a positive average effect on performance outcomes,
showing the preliminary evidence supporting H1b. Moreover,
consistent with the results of student behavior, the inter-
ventions had differential effects on male and female students.
Peer information interventions have a stronger effect for male
students than female students (Figure 4b).
To test our hypotheses regarding the average treatment effect
of the interventions on performance outcome, we first con-
ducted regression analyses using all data combined from the
three studies (Model 1 in Table 9). We see that peer
information interventions have a positive main effect on
students learning performance (4.13, p < 0.01), which sup-
ports our H1b. Further, consistent with H2a, the estimation
of the interaction term of Treatment*Male is 6.33 and statis-
tically significant (Model 2 in Table 9). Therefore, the
interventions have a stronger treatment effect on Grade for
males than for females.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 175

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

(a) Impact on Grade (b) Impact on Grade by Gender

Figure 4. Effects of Peer Information Interventions on Performance Outcome

Table 9. Effects on Performance Outcome

Pooled Data (Study I&II&III)
All
DV: Grade Model 1 Model 2 Male Female
83.23*** 87.86*** 79.87*** 91.64***
Intercept
(4.35) (4.63) (5.49) (7.04)
4.13*** 0.31 6.54*** 0.27
Treatment
(1.57) (2.45) (2.18) (2.18)
-6.42***
Male – – –
(2.27)
6.33**
Treatment*Male – – –
(3.19)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 608 608 362 246
R-squared 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.06
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

Having observed heterogeneous treatment effects of gender,
we then conducted the analyses for male students and female
students separately (Table 9). Results show that the inter-
ventions have a positive effect on students learning perfor-
mance only for male students (6.54), and not for female
students (0.27), indicating a stronger treatment effect for male
students.
Mediating Role of Behavior Change
From the results of earlier sections, we have observed the
positive effects of peer information interventions on both
student behavior and performance outcomes. In this section,
we aim to establish the potential underlying mechanisms of
the effectiveness of the interventions by conducting a media-
tion analysis. Since there are heterogeneous treatment effects
of gender, we therefore conducted the analyses for male
students and female students separately.
Following the two-step approach proposed by Zhao et al.
(2010), we estimated two regression equations with StartTime
and Grade as dependent variables for each (shown in Table
10). Specifically, male students receiving peer information
started to work on the assignment 10.23 hours earlier than
those in the control group did. The estimated coefficient of

176 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 10. The Mediating Role of Behavior Change

Males Females
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
StartTime Grade StartTime Grade
35.93*** 76.77*** 66.77*** 88.13***
Intercept
(8.20) (5.61) (13.24) (7.41)
10.23*** 5.66** -3.91 0.47
Treatment
(3.26) (2.20) (4.10) (2.18)
0.09** 0.05
StartTime – –
(0.04) (0.04)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 362 362 246 246
R-squared 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.07
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

StartTime in Step 2 is statistically significant (0.09, p < 0.05),
indicating a positive effect of reducing procrastination on
performance outcomes. Hence, the mediation effect of
behavior improvement (StartTime) on male students’ perfor-
mance outcomes (Grade) is 0.92. We conducted a bootstrap
analysis (10,000 samples) and found that the mediation effect
is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Hence, the mediating
role of behavior change is found for male students. That is,
peer information interventions have a positive effect on
reducing male students’ procrastination behavior, which leads
to better performance outcomes (if a male student started 24
hours earlier to work on the assignment, he would achieve a
2.16% higher grade). However, we did not find such a
significant mediating effect for female students.
The mediation analysis above highlights that behavior
improvement serves as the underlying mechanism for perfor-
mance improvement.
Additional Analyses and Robustness Checks
Past Behavior and Performance
We further explore how students’ past procrastination
behavior and performance affect male students’ responses to
peer information interventions. We created two dummy
variables: (1) StartLate_Prev, equal to 1 if a student started
working on the previous assignment later than at least half of
the other students, and equal to 0 otherwise, and
(2) GradeLow_Prev, equal to 1 if a student’s grade from the
previous assignment was lower than at least half of the other
students, and equal to 0 otherwise.
show that the treatment effect is stronger for males with
poorer past behavior than those with better past behavior
(9.06, p < 0.10). After receiving peer information, a male
student with poorer past behavior started to work on the
assignment 9.06 hours earlier than a male with better past
behavior. Parameter estimate of the three-way interaction
(Model 3) is 32.54 (statistically significant, p < 0.05). That is,
the effect of peer information is stronger for students with
poorer past behavior and past performance. Hence, H3 is
supported.
Effect of the Prevalence of Peer Behavior
The effect of peer information interventions may depend on
how prevalent certain behavior is observed among peers (Sun
et al. 2019).5 To investigate the potential heterogeneous
effects with respect to different percentage X, we created two
dummy variables: StartPercent_Low (1 if start percent < 50%
and 0 otherwise) and StartPercent_High (1 if start percent $
50% and 0 otherwise). Empirical results (Table C2 in Appen-
dix C) show that for females, the effect of peer information is
not significant (p = 0.36 and p = 0.18 for low and high per-
centages, respectively), although we observe some trend that
disclosing a low percentage X may have a negative effect (not
statistically significant, p > 0.10). For males, the effect of
peer information interventions is positive and statistically
significant (for either low or high percentages), and the effect
is stronger when the percentage X is high.
However, the prevalence of peer behavior above (Study I, II,
and III) is not (strictly) exogenous. To ensure strictly exo-
genous prevalence levels, in Study IV we utilized an alterna-

To test Hypothesis H3, we analyzed the combined data from 5

Table C1 in Appendix C shows the distribution of the start percentages (i.e.,
three studies (results in Table 11 below). Results in Model 1 X used in our treatment messages).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 177

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table 11. Regression Results by Past Behavior and Performance (Males)

DV: StartTime Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
43.03*** 40.47*** 35.00***
Intercept
(8.42) (8.38) (8.88)
3.71 9.94** 12.49*
Treatment
(5.08) (4.51) (6.66)
-10.02** -5.97* 1.66
StartLate_Prev
(4.75) (3.45) (6.34)
-2.70 -1.62 13.11*
GradeLow_Prev
(3.56) (4.86) (7.10)
9.06* -5.10
Treatment * StartLate_Prev –
(4.98) (9.00)
-3.12 -20.29**
Treatment * GradeLow_Prev –
(7.19) (10.23)
-26.87***
StartLate_Prev * GradeLow_Prev – –
(9.59)
32.54**
Treatment* StartLate_Prev * GradeLow_Prev – –
(14.14)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes
N 303 303 303
R-squared 0.17 0.17 0.20
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

tive design, in which we manipulated the prevalence level of
peer behavior revealed to students.6 We randomly assigned
students from one single class to a control group to receive
reminder messages without peer information or to one of the
three treatment groups to receive messages with peer infor-
mation at different levels (low = 21%, medium = 41%, or high
= 61%) (Table C3 in Appendix C).
Figure 5 visualizes the treatment effects by different preva-
lence level of peer information. We also conducted formal
analyses and summarized results in Table C5 (Appendix C).
We observe differential responses by males and females. For
females, providing peer information does not help them
reduce procrastination when prevalence level is low, but we
see a positive trend for medium or high level prevalence
(although not statistically significant, p > 0.10). For males,
however, providing peer information helps reduce procras-
tination even when the prevalence level is only 21% (statis-
tically significant, p = 0.09). Males’ response to low preva-
lence can be because peer information induces a competitive
environment: males want to play ahead of the game to
achieve a higher grade than their peers. These findings
suggest that females are more affected by conformity,
whereas males can also be influenced by competition.
Cross-talk with Other Subjects
One common issue in uncontrolled field experiments is the
possibility of contamination, in which a subject happens to be
exposed to multiple treatment conditions. In our setting, it is
likely that such contamination occurs through cross-talk with
other students in the class. For instance, a student in the con-
trol group happens to know the message intended for students
in the treatment group.
To provide additional evidence that contamination is not a
major concern, we conducted a post-experiment survey for
both Study II and Study III, in which we asked subjects if
they discussed the message they received with classmates.
Survey results show that the likelihood of cross-talk and
receiving different messages was only 6%~8% (Table F2 in
Appendix F). This result suggests that cross-talk does exist,
but it does not seem to be a major concern in our setting. As
a robustness check, we excluded those subjects who might
have discussed their message with friends. The empirical
results remain consistent (Table F3 in Appendix F).
Are Reminder Messages Alone Effective?

6 In Study III, we also look into if reminder messages without

This type of manipulation may be subject to ethical concern and should not
be the standard design in large-scale interventions. peer information would help reduce student procrastination.

178 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021


(a) Impact of Reminder on Start Time
Figure 6. No Message Versus Reminder Messages
We compared the StartTime for students received reminder
messages without peer information and those received no
messages (Figure 6). Results in Table D1 (Appendix D) show
that reminder messages without peer information do not have
a significant effect in reducing procrastination for either male
or female students. This is not surprising because many LMS
already have some sort of reminder features built into the
system. For instance, when students log into their Canvas
account, Canvas shows students a “To Do” list along with the
deadline for each item.
Discussion and Conclusion
Social Conformity or Social Comparison?
The literature has suggested that peer information inter-
ventions influence individual behavior because people may
choose to comply with peers (Schultz et al. 2007). However,
social conformity alone would predict that females are more
responsive to interventions, which contradicts the empirical
findings from our study. We demonstrate that such incon-
sistency is due to the different contexts under which previous
studies were conducted. Social conformity is more salient in
noncompetitive settings, whereas social comparison can
dominate in competitive environments. Prior studies have
focused on noncompetitive settings, in which an individual’s
performance does not interfere with others’ performance.
Therefore, the primary effects of peer information interven-
tions come from social conformity. In our competitive class-
room setting, however, students may perceive a certain level
of competition with their classmates and providing peer
information may induce comparison concerns. Therefore, the
primary effects of peer information interventions may come
from social comparison, rather than social conformity. In
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
(b) Impact of Reminder by Gender
competitive settings, males are more likely to respond to peer
information interventions than females. Such differential
effects are even more salient in a male-dominated environ-
ment. These results are consistent with the theory of gender
differences in competitive environments (Gneezy et al. 2003),
which predicts a significant increase in performance for males
as the competitiveness of the environment increases, but not
for females. Males have been found to exhibit significantly
more aggressiveness than females (Brooks 1982). Further-
more, males prefer competition more than females. There-
fore, males are more likely to opt into a competitive setting
induced by the descriptive peer information they received
(Gneezy et al. 2003).
To further dig into the competition effects induced by peer
information, we pool the findings across multiple studies for
more in-depth discussions. The empirical results suggest that
peer information motivates behavior change by inducing
comparison concerns, which enhances the perceived compe-
titiveness of the environment (Gneezy et al. 2003). Gender
differences observed in our experiments can be explained by
the differential responses to competition between males and
females. The direct support for the competition argument
comes from Study III, in which we manipulated the compe-
tition conditions. Compared with females, males are more
responsive to interventions in ranking based conditions.
However, we do not observe such gender differences in non-
ranking based conditions. Another direct evidence comes
from Study IV, in which we manipulated the prevalence of
peer behaviors. For males, however, providing peer informa-
tion helps reduce procrastination even when the prevalence
level is low (21%), which cannot be explained by social con-
formity. Males’ response to low prevalence can be because
peer information introduces comparison concerns and compe-
tition effects: males want to play ahead of the game to
achieve a higher grade than their peers do.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 179
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
Theoretical Implications
Prior studies have focused on peer information interventions
in noncompetitive environments, in which an individual’s
performance does not interfere with others’ performance. We
demonstrate that social conformity is more salient in non-
competitive settings, whereas social comparison can dominate
in competitive environments. This research complements to
the literature by investigating peer information interventions
in environments with some degree of competition. In contrast
to the prediction from the social conformity theory, our results
show that males are actually more likely to respond to peer
information interventions. Our results suggest males are more
strongly motivated because they are more competitive-
oriented (Gneezy et al. 2003). Our research highlights the
role of environmental contexts in peer information interven-
tions.
This research provides insights into the mixed results in the
literature about peer information interventions (Schultz et al.
2007). Our research demonstrates that peer information inter-
ventions are moderated by individual characteristics and
contextual variables. Individual differences such as gender
and behavior trajectory play a significant role in an indi-
vidual’s responses to peer information interventions. We also
find that peer information interventions motivate behavior
change, which in turn leads to a better performance outcome.
This finding adds to the literature by establishing the media-
tion link between digital interventions and performance
improvement. Our research, therefore, adds to the broader
literature of digital interventions through social influence and
peer effects by highlighting the possibility of targeted inter-
ventions based on individual characteristics and the
contextual environment (Lu et al. 2016).
This research also points to the dark side of peer information
interventions: widening the gender gap. The literature has
documented the gender and performance gap in competitive
settings. Our research suggests that peer information inter-
ventions can widen such gender gap because providing peer
information enhances the competitiveness of the environment.
In competitive environments, females are at a greater disad-
vantage due to peer information interventions.
Practical Implications
This research has implications for the design of digital inter-
ventions. Prior research has discussed how alternative
pedagogical designs such as imposing multiple intermediate
deadlines may reduce student procrastination (Ariely and
Wertenbroch 2002; Lamwers and Jazwinski 1989). Such
interventions, however, are costly to implement because they
180 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021
require significant changes to the current curriculum design
or impose extra responsibilities on the teachers. This research
evaluates a data-driven approach to reduce student procras-
tination via digital interventions. Information systems have
led to an aggregation of detailed data on individuals’ behavior
trajectory and outcomes. Our research demonstrates how to
analyze these data to study individual behavior, understand
what behavioral patterns are associated with superior or
unsatisfactory outcomes, and ultimately, to improve
individual performance by targeted interventions.
The findings from this study have implications for the optimal
design of data-driven, targeted interventions to promote
healthy behaviors and outcomes. Providing peer information
may help reduce procrastination for college students, but the
effect depends on individual characteristics and the contextual
environment. To achieve effective interventions, educators
may consider individuals’ gender, behavior trajectory, past
performance, and gender composition in the class. For
instance, peer information interventions may target males in
a male-majority environment because these individuals
benefit more from such treatments. The peer information
interventions artifact we developed for LMS can auto-
matically extract real-time information from Canvas’ system
log to implement targeted interventions.
Limitations and Future Research
One important issue in peer information interventions is that
the prevalence of peer behavior (“X% of students have
started…”) depends on the timing of interventions and other
factors. It is likely that the percentage X is small at the time
of interventions. For males, our research shows that
providing peer information is beneficial even when the
percentage X is relatively low. However, disclosing a low
percentage to females may backfire. To address the potential
negative effect of low percentage value, future research may
experiment with alternative framing of the message, for
example, by hiding the percentage information in the message
to females: “Students in your class/group have already
started….” Future research may also leverage cross-group
tournament, in which instructors disclose information about
other groups in the class (“X % of other study groups have
started…”). Such a design may cultivate a more cooperative
environment within a group but promote competition between
groups. It is likely that gender and gender composition may
play a role in such settings (Delfgaauw et al. 2013). In
addition, it is likely that some students delay on purpose.
Future research may investigate whether peer information
interventions are beneficial to these students. Finally, we
have conducted field experiments on multiple business
courses in the classroom setting, but future research can

benefit from expanding the scale and scope of the experiments
to test the generalizability of our findings to various contexts.
For example, we may expand the study to different disciplines
and different levels of courses and MOOC platforms. Future
research may also look at the effects of peer information in
other business settings, such as workplaces.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the senior editor, the associate editor, and the
reviewers for a highly constructive and developmental review
process, which has substantially improved the manuscript. The
authors also thank all instructors at Boston College and the Univer-
sity of Delaware who helped set up the experiments in their classes.
References
Ahuja, M. K., and Thatcher, J. B. 2005. “Moving beyond
Intentions and toward the Theory of Trying: Effects of Work
Environment and Gender on Post-Adoption Information Tech-
nology Use,” MIS Quarterly (29:3), pp. 427-459.
Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., and Iriberri, N. 2012. “The Impact of
Gender Composition on Team Performance and Decision
Making: Evidence from the Field,” Management Science (58:1),
pp. 78-93.
Ariely, D., and Wertenbroch, K. 2002. “Procrastination, Deadlines,
and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment,” Psycho-
logical Science (13:3), pp. 219-224.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., and McGue, M.
2006. “The Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy:
Genetic and Personality Factors,” The Leadership Quarterly
(17:1), pp. 1-20.
Baek, J., and Shore, J. 2020. “Forum Size and Content Contribu-
tion per person: A Field Experiment,” Management Science
(66:12), pp. 5906-5924.
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., and Milkman,
K. L. 2015. “The Effect of Providing Peer Information on
Retirement Savings Decisions,” The Journal of Finance (70:3),
pp. 1161-1201.
Brooks, V. R. 1982. “Sex Differences in Student Dominance
Behavior in Female and Male Professors’ Classrooms,” Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research (8:7), pp. 683-690.
Cerezo, R., Esteban, M., Sánchez-Santillán, M., and Núñez, J. C.
2017. “Procrastinating Behavior in Computer-Based Learning
Environments to Predict Performance: A Case Study in
Moodle,” Frontiers in Psychology (8), Article 1403.
Cialdini, R. B., and Goldstein, N. J. 2004. “Social Influence:
Compliance and Conformity,” Annual Review of Psychology
(55), pp. 591-621.
Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. 1998. Social Influence: Social
Norms, Conformity and Compliance, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., and Voas,
R. B. 2003. “A Failed Norms Social Marketing Campaign,”
Journal of Studies on Alcohol (64:3), pp. 409-414.
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., and Bichsel, J. 2014. “The Current
Ecosystem of Learning Management Systems in Higher
Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives,” EDUCAUSE
Research, September 17.
Delfgaauw, J., Dur, R., Sol, J., and Verbeke, W. 2013. “Tourna-
ment Incentives in the Field: Gender Differences in the
Workplace,” Journal of Labor Economics (31:2), pp. 305-326.
Dewan, S., Ho, Y.-J., and Ramaprasad, J. 2017. “Popularity or
Proximity: Characterizing the Nature of Social Influence in an
Online Music Community,” Information Systems Research
(28:1), pp. 117-136.
Dufwenberg, M., and Muren, A. 2006. “Gender Composition in
Teams,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (61:1),
pp. 50-54.
Ferrari, J. R. 1992. “Procrastinators and Perfect Behavior: An
Exploratory Factor Analysis of Self-Presentation, Self-
Awareness, and Self-Handicapping Components,” Journal of
Research in Personality (26:1), pp. 75-84.
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., and Regan, D. T. 1993. “Does Studying
Economics Inhibit Cooperation?,” The Journal of Economic
Perspectives (7:2), pp. 159-171.
Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., and Schiff, T. M. 2013. “The Psychology
of Competition: A Social Comparison Perspective,” Perspectives
on Psychological Science (8:6), pp. 634-650.
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., and Rustichini, A. 2003. “Performance
in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics (118:3), pp. 1049-1074.
Gordon, F. M., Welch, K. R., Offringa, G., and Katz, N. 2000.
“The Complexity of Social Outcomes from Cooperative, Com-
petitive, and Individualistic Reward Systems,” Social Justice
Research (13:3), pp. 237-269.
Granfield, R. 2005. “Alcohol Use in College: Limitations on the
Transformation of Social Norms,” Addiction Research & Theory
(13:3), pp. 281-292.
Gupta, N. D., Poulsen, A., and Villeval, M. C. 2013. “Gender
Matching and Competitiveness: Experimental Evidence,” Econ-
omic Inquiry (51:1), pp. 816-835.
Hashim, M. J., Kannan, K. N., and Maximiano, S. 2017. “Informa-
tion Feedback, Targeting, and Coordination: An Experimental
Study,” Information Systems Research (28:2), pp. 289-308.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. 2004. “Design
Science in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly
(28:1), pp. 75-105.
Huang, N., Burtch, G., Gu, B., Hong, Y., Liang, C., Wang, K.,
Fu, D., and Yang, B. 2019. “Motivating User-Generated Con-
tent with Performance Feedback: Evidence from Randomized
Field Experiments,” Management Science (65:1), pp. 327-345.
Huang, N., Zhang, J., Burtch, G., Li, X., and Chen, P. 2018.
“Combating Procrastination on MOOCs via Optimal Calls-to-
Action: Evidence from a Field Experiment,” in Academy of
Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, p. 14171.
Karatas, H. 2015. “Correlation among Academic Procrastination,
Personality Traits, and Academic Achievement,” Anthropologist
(20:1,2), pp. 243-255.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Gelfand, M. J., and Yuki, M.
1995. “Culture, Gender, and Self: A Perspective from
Individualism–Collectivism Research,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology (69:5), pp. 925-937.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 181
Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments
Kim, K. R., and Seo, E. H. 2015. “The Relationship between
Procrastination and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis,”
Personality and Individual Differences (82), pp. 26-33.
Lam, P., Lo, J., Lee, J., and McNaught, C. 2012. “Evaluations of
Online Learning Activities Based on LMS Logs,” in Virtual
Learning Environments: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and
Applications, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1767-1784.
Lamwers, L. L., and Jazwinski, C. H. 1989. “A Comparison of
Three Strategies to Reduce Student Procrastination in PSI,”
Teaching of Psychology (16:1), pp. 8-12.
Lavy, V., and Schlosser, A. 2011. “Mechanisms and Impacts of
Gender Peer Effects at School,” American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics (3:2), pp. 1-33.
Lee, S., Turner, L. J., Woo, S., and Kim, K. 2014. “All or Nothing?
The Impact of School and Classroom Gender Composition on
Effort and Academic Achievement,” Working Paper, National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Lee, Y.-J., Hosanagar, K., and Tan, Y. 2015. “Do I Follow My
Friends or the Crowd? Information Cascades in Online Movie
Ratings,” Management Science (61:9), pp. 2241-2258.
Leland, J., Schneider, M., and Wilcox, N. 2019. “Minimal Frames
and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty,”
Management Science (65:9), pp. 4318-4335.
Lewis, M. A., and Neighbors, C. 2004. “Gender-Specific Misper-
ceptions of College Student Drinking Norms,” Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors (18:4), pp. 334-339.
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., and Webster, J. 2017. “Toward Mean-
ingful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of
Gamified Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (41:4), pp.
1011-1034.
Lu, X., Zhao, X., and Xue, L. 2016. “Is Combining Contextual and
Behavioral Targeting Strategies Effective in Online Adver-
tising?,” ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems
(7:1), pp. 1-20.
Michael, J. 1991. “A Behavioral Perspective on College
Teaching,” The Behavior Analyst (14:2), pp. 229-239.
Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., and Delaval, M.
2011. “Procrastination, Participation, and Performance in Online
Learning Environments,” Computers & Education (56:1), pp.
243-252.
O’Brien, W. K. 2002. “Applying the Transtheoretical Model to
Academic Procrastination,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Houston.
Özer, B. U., Demir, A., and Ferrari, J. R. 2009. “Exploring
Academic Procrastination among Turkish Students: Possible
Gender Differences in Prevalence and Reasons,” The Journal of
Social Psychology (149:2), pp. 241-257.
Peng, C.-H., Yin, D., Wei, C.-P., and Zhang, H. 2017. “Impact of
Perspective Taking on Reviewer Behavior: A Multi-Method
Exploration,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference
on Information Systems, Seoul.
Perkins, H. W. 2002. “Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol
Misuse in Collegiate Contexts,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
Supplement (14), pp. 164-172.
Perkins, H. W., Haines, M. P., and Rice, R. 2005. “Misperceiving
the College Drinking Norm and Related Problems: A Nation-
wide Study of Exposure to Prevention Information, Perceived
Norms and Student Alcohol Misuse,” Journal of Studies on
Alcohol (66:4), pp. 470-478.
182 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021
Perrin, C. J., Miller, N., Haberlin, A. T., Ivy, J. W., Meindl, J. N.,
and Neef, N. A. 2010. “Measuring and Reducing College
Students’ Procrastination,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
(44:3), pp. 463-474.
Pychyl, T. A., and Sirois, F. M. 2016. “Procrastination, Emotion
Regulation, and Well-Being,” Chapter 8 in Procrastination,
Health, and Well-Being, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp.
163-188.
Qiu, L., and Kumar, S. 2017. “Understanding Voluntary Knowl-
edge Provision and Content Contribution through a Social-
Media-Based Prediction Market: A Field Experiment,”
Information Systems Research (28:3), pp. 529-546.
Rotenstein, A., Davis, H. Z., and Tatum, L. 2009. “Early Birds
Versus Just-in-Timers: The Effect of Procrastination on
Academic Performance of Accounting Students,” Journal of
Accounting Education (27:4), pp. 223-232.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., and Berenbaum, S. A. 2006. “Gender
Development,” in Handbook of Child Psychology, New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C. H., Pychyl, T. A., and Ferrari, J. R.
2004. Counseling the Procrastinator in Academic Settings,
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., and
Griskevicius, V. 2007. “The Constructive, Destructive, and
Reconstructive Power of Social Norms,” Psychological Science
(18:5), pp. 429-434.
Silva, A., and John, P. 2017. “Social Norms Don’t Always Work:
An Experiment to Encourage More Efficient Fees Collection for
Students,” PloS One (12:5), p. e0177354.
Steel, P. 2007. “The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic
and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory
Failure,” Psychological Bulletin (133:1), pp. 65-94.
Steel, P., Brothen, T., and Wambach, C. 2001. “Procrastination and
Personality, Performance, and Mood,” Personality and Individual
Differences (30:1), pp. 95-106.
Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., and Decker, S. K. 2009. “Altruism or
Psychological Escape: Why Does Empathy Promote Prosocial
Behavior?,” European Journal of Social Psychology (39:5), pp.
649-665.
StudyMode. 2014. “Eighty-Seven Percent of High School and
College Students Are Self-Proclaimed Procrastinators,”
PRNewswire, May 27.
Sun, M., Zhang, X., and Zhu, F. 2019. “U-Shaped Conformity in
Online Social Networks,” Marketing Science (38:3), pp.
461-480.
van Eerde, W., and Klingsieck, K. B. 2018. “Overcoming Procras-
tination? A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies,” Educational
Research Review (25), pp. 73-85.
Wang, L., Gunasti, K., Gopal, R., Shankar, R., and Pancras, J.
2017. “The Impact of Gamification on Word-of-Mouth Effec-
tiveness: Evidence from Foursquare,” in Proceedings of the 50th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los
Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., and Messick, D. M. 2004. “A
Conceptual Review of Decision Making in Social Dilemmas:
Applying a Logic of Appropriateness,” Personality and Social
Psychology Review (8:3), pp. 281-307.
 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. E., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis, C., and
Keeling, R. P. 2003. “Perception and Reality: A National
Evaluation of Social Norms Marketing Interventions to Reduce
College Students’ Heavy Alcohol Use,” Journal of Studies on
Alcohol (64:4), pp. 484-494.
Werch, C. E., Pappas, D. M., Carlson, J. M., DiClemente, C. C.,
Chally, P. S., and Sinder, J. A. 2000. “Results of a Social Norm
Intervention to Prevent Binge Drinking among First-Year Resi-
dential College Students,” Journal of American College Health
(49:2), pp. 85-92.
You, J. W. 2016. “Identifying Significant Indicators Using LMS
Data to Predict Course Achievement in Online Learning,” The
Internet and Higher Education (29), pp. 23-30.
Zhang, D. J., Allon, G., and Van Mieghem, J. A. 2017. “Does
Social Interaction Improve Learning Outcomes? Evidence from
Field Experiments on Massive Open Online Courses,” Manu-
facturing & Service Operations Management (19:3), pp. 347-367.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J. G., and Chen, Q. 2010. “Reconsidering
Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis,”
Journal of Consumer Research (37:2), pp. 197-206.
About the Authors
Zhuoxin Li is an assistant professor of Information Systems in the
Carroll School of Management at Boston College. He received his
Ph.D. in Information, Risk, and Operations Management from the
University of Texas at Austin. His research interests focus on
information and coordination issues in digital platforms and value
chains. His research has been published or is forthcoming in MIS
Quarterly, Management Science and Production and Operations
Management.
Gang Wang is an assistant professor of Management Information
Systems at the Lerner College of Business and Economics at the
University of Delaware. He received his Ph.D. in Operations and
Information Management from the University of Connecticut. His
research interests include social media, e-Business platforms, and
firm strategies in e-Markets. His research has been published in
ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems and
Decision Support Systems.
Harry Jiannan Wang is a professor of Management Information
Systems at the Lerner College of Business and Economics at the
University of Delaware. He received his Ph.D. in MIS from the
University of Arizona. He was the founding director of OneConnect
(NYSE: OCFT) US Research Institute and served as Vice President
of Technology for the Association for Information Systems. His
research interests involve artificial intelligence, business analytics,
business process management, and enterprise systems. He has
published research articles in journals such as Information Systems
Research, Decision Support Systems, and ACM Transactions on
Management Information Systems.

Appendix A
Randomization Tests

Table A1. Randomization Test for Study I

Control Treatment p-value
N 136 120 –
Male 0.60 0.58 0.74
StartTime_Prev 75.78 77.50 0.46
Grade_Prev 93.13 92.48 0.43

Table A2. Randomization Test for Study II

Control Treatment p-value
N 71 63 –
Male 0.59 0.54 0.55
StartTime_Prev 82.56 74.86 0.55
Grade_Prev 85.81 88.42 0.40

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 183

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table A3. Randomization Test for Study III

Non-Ranking
Ranking Conditions Conditions p-value
# Sections 6 5
# Survey Responses 144 136 –
FirstFactor 0.12 -0.13 0.41
Number of Courses 5.20 5.18 0.65
Level_PrerequisiteGrade 4.74 4.79 0.83
Interest_level 4.57 4.68 0.19
Level_PrevGPA 4.34 4.41 0.50
Note: FirstFactor measures self-reported procrastination tendency (see Appendix F for details).

Appendix B
Group-Level Summary and Results

Table B1. Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Group-level Male Proportion

Group_Male_Composition # Groups Mean SD Min Median Max
Overall 39 54.34 34.01 0 60.00 100
Section 1 7 64.29 26.92 0 60.00 83.33
Study II Section 2 7 62.29 21.21 16.67 66.67 83.33
Section 3 11 43.79 38.44 0 50.00 100
Section 4 14 53.69 38.99 0 58.33 100
Overall 147 61.27 24.68 0 66.67 100
Section 1 13 50.00 16.67 33 50.00 100
Section 2 13 57.69 24.17 33 66.67 100
Section 3 14 64.74 25.49 33 66.67 100
Section 4 13 65.38 24.02 33 66.67 100
Section 5 14 66.67 22.96 33 66.67 100
Study III
Section 6 13 66.67 24.02 33 66.67 100
Section 7 13 57.69 24.17 33 66.67 100
Section 8 14 64.74 16.72 33 66.67 100
Section 9 13 58.33 25.00 33 66.67 100
Section 10 13 70.21 28.76 33 71.05 100
Section 11 14 58.97 36.40 0 66.67 100

184 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table B2. Effects of Group-Level Gender Composition (Pooling Data)

Males Only
DV: StartTime Male Majority Group Non-Male Majority Group Combined
33.02*** 36.09** 24.48***
Intercept
(7.87) (16.43) (9.04)
19.66*** 4.06 -0.71
Treatment
(4.97) (10.29) (8.77)
12.38*
Male_majority – –
(7.08)
19.70*
Treatment*Male_majority – –
(10.26)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes
N 109 38 147
R-squared 0.46 0.36 0.43
Notes: (1) Pooling data are from Study II and the competitive setting from Study III.
(2) Male_majority is a dummy variable, equal to 1 if the percentage of male students (Group_Male_Composition) in a group is above
60%, 0 otherwise.
(3) ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

Appendix C
Prevalence of Peer Behavior

Table C1. Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Start Percent (X) in a Reference Group
# of
Reference Group Subjects Mean SD Min Median Max
Overall 608 38.26 11.22 17 35 67
Study I Section level 256 42.32 6.26 35 48 48
Study II Group level 134 31.51 13.30 17 25 67
Study III Group level 218 37.84 0.12 25 33 67

Table C2. Effect of Start Percent of Peers (Study I&II&III)

DV: StartTime All Males Female
49.51*** 36.53*** 62.44***
Intercept
(7.27) (8.13) (13.67)
2.39 8.54*** -5.67
Treatment*StartPercent_Low
(2.58) (3.29) (4.18)
24.37*** 31.86*** 10.82
Treatment*StartPercent_High
(7.38) (9.86) (11.87)
-8.32***
Male – –
(2.66)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes
N 608 362 246
R-squared 0.17 0.21 0.21
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 185

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table C3. Treatment Conditions with Section-Level, Randomized Norms (Study IV)
Condition Message
Control
Assignment 3 is due in 4 days.
(No Social Info.)
Treatment 1 Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. 21% of students in your class have started working on this
(Low Prevalence) assignment.
Treatment 2 Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. 41% of students in your class have started working on this
(Medium Prevalence) assignment.
Treatment 3 Assignment 3 is due in 4 days. 61% of students in your class have started working on this
(High Prevalence) assignment.

Table C4. Randomization Test for Study IV

Control T1-Low T2-Medium T3-High p-value
N 58 60 57 53 –
Male 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.60 0.55
StartTime_Prev 70.47 75.27 72.38 84.63 0.53
Grade_Prev 96.94 93.85 95.86 96.31 0.23
Note: There were 270 students in this single class. At the time when we sent messages, 42 (16%) students had started to work on the assignment.
The remaining 228 students were randomly assigned to one of the conditions.

Table C5. Results from Randomization of Peer Behavior Prevalence (Study IV)
DV: StartTime All Males Females
24.45 14.15*** 30.01
Intercept
(15.84) (21.09) (24.18)
4.65 9.64* -3.60
Treatment1 (Low-21%)
(4.74) (5.60) (8.48)
10.44** 14.36** 4.30
Treatment2 (Medium-41%)
(4.75) (5.93) (7.84)
15.42*** 21.73*** 5.18
Treatment3 (High-61%)
(4.89) (5.91) (8.42)
-6.07*
Male – –
(3.50)
0.12*** 0.15*** 0.07
StartTime_Prev
(0.03) (0.03) (0.05)
0.002 -0.01 0.05
Grade_Prev
(0.16) (0.22) (0.25)
N 217 129 88
R-squared 0.17 0.24 0.05
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

186 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Appendix D
Effects of Interventions

Table D1. Effects of Interventions (Study III)

All
DV: StartTime Model 1 Model 2 Males Females
35.92*** 42.02*** 36.32*** 35.39***
Intercept
(6.34) (7.36) (7.65) (11.37)
0.47 6.85 -3.15 6.21
T1 (Reminder-only)
(4.11) (6.60) (5.26) (6.51)
8.98** 5.34 11.01** 4.41
T2 (Reminder and peer info)
(4.08) (6.50) (5.27) (6.40)
-8.55
Male – – –
(5.93)
-9.89
T1*Male – – –
(8.36)
5.89
T2*Male – – –
(8.30)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 324 324 201 123
Notes: Standard errors are reported in parentheses; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

Appendix E
Additional Information about the Experiment Context
Course Information

The courses experimented in this research are business core courses (undergraduate level). These courses cover various topics related to data
analytics methods using Excel, SAS, and other tools.

Grading Policies

Starting from 2017, the business school has enforced grading policies for core courses, which have stated “targets of 15% A grades at most,
35% A- or above at most, and 65% B+ or above at most.” These standards applied to students in all core courses, including those in Study I,
Study II, and Study IV.

For Study III, we use a different course without a ranking-based grading policy for the final letter grades. Instead, we create competitive
conditions by applying a ranking-based grading policy for the experimented assignment only. When the assignment was released, students
from a section assigned into competitive conditions were notified by instructors about the specific policy. That is, a student’ score for the
experimented assignment will be adjusted according to his/her ranking of the raw score within a class (Table E1).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 187

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table E1. Grading Policy in Competitive Conditions

Ranking of Raw Scores (High to Low)
Within a Class Assignment Grade Adjusted Assignment Score
Top 15% A 100
Top 16~35% A- 92
Top 36%~60% B+ 82
Top 61%~75% B 76
Top 76%~83% B- 68
Top 84%~89% C+ 62
Top 90%~93% C 56
Top 94%~97% C- 48
>98% D+ 42

Example Questions
Instructions

A telecom firm was concerned about the amount of churn (customers’ discontinuation of subscription) it was facing. The information about
the customers on the observation date and their decision to churn between 31 and 60 days after observation date are recorded in a SAS dataset
called “cc.Cell”.

The first 10 observations of the data are

The dataset has the following variables:

(1) Customer_id: Unique customer identification number

(2) Churn (dependent variable): A dummy variable indicating the instance of churn between 31-60 days after observation date
(3) Avgmou: Average monthly minutes of use over the life of the customer
(4) Months: Total number of months in service
(5) Eqpdays: Number of days (age) of current equipment
(6) Rent: A dummy variable indicating whether the customer rent (Rent = 1) or own the equipment (Rent = 0)
(7) Retcall: A dummy variable indicating whether the customer has received a retention call in the past 365 days (Retcall = 1) or not (Retcall
= 0).
(8) Creditcard: A dummy variable indicating whether the customer owns a credit card (Creditcard = 1) or not (Creditcard = 0)

188 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Questions

Run a logistic regression, which models the probability that a customer would churn (Churn = 1) using the explanatory variables: (3) Avgmou;
(4) Months; (5) Eqpdays, (6) Rent; (7) Retcall; and (8) Creditcard.

Please answer the following questions:

a. What is the -2 Log-likelihood and AIC value of the model?

b. How much better is this model than the null model with no covariates (that is a model with only intercepts) in terms of -2LogL and AIC?
c. Which variables are significant?
d. Quantify the impact of “rent” on the odds of churning using percentage change. (Answer is supposed to be structured as: Compared to those
who own the equipment (rent = 0), odds of buying for those who rent the equipment (rent = 1) is XX% lower/higher.)

Appendix F
Survey
Validation of StartTime as a Measure of Procrastination

In this appendix, we provide more support on the validity of using StartTime as a measure of procrastination. Specifically, we followed a
procedure used in prior studies and evaluated the correlation between self-reported procrastination tendency and observed behavior (Michinov
et al. 2011; Steel et al. 2001).

At the beginning of the semester for Study III, all students received a questionnaire regarding their basic information (e.g., cumulative GPA,
grade of the prerequisite course, and degree of interest in the course) and procrastination tendency. A six-item procrastination scale was adopted
and adjusted according to our classroom context (Michinov et al. 2011; Steel et al. 2001). Items include “I postpone starting in on things I don’t
like to do,” “When I have a deadline, I wait till the last minute,” “I promise myself I’ll do something then drag my feet,” “Whenever I make
a plan of action, I follow it,” “Even though I hate myself if I don’t get started, it doesn’t get my going,” “I always finish important jobs with
time to spare.” Students respond on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We conducted a principal
component analysis on the six items, resulting the first component explaining 48.12% of the total variance, which is comparable to the literature
(Michinov et al. 2011). We used the value of the first component (FirstFactor) as a measure of self-reported procrastination tendency.

We calculated the correlation between self-reported procrastination tendency (FirstFactor) and observed StartTime, leading to -0.35, which
is statistically significant (p < 0.001), which is comparable to that in the literature (Steel et al. 2001).

We further regressed the self-reported procrastination tendency (FirstFactor) on StartTime and other control variables. The results (Table F1)
show that observed behavior (StartTime) is a valid indicator for procrastination.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 189

Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table F1. StartTime and Self-Reported Procrastination Tendency

DV: FirstFactor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
0.68* 3.76*** 4.07***
Intercept
(0.32) (0.94) (0.89)
-0.01*** -0.01***
StartTime –
(0.002) (0.002)
-0.05 -0.14
Male –
(0.21) (0.20)
-0.17* -0.12
CumulativeGPA –
(0.09) (0.09)
-0.08 -0.04
Grade_ Prerequisite –
(0.08) (0.07)
-0.60*** -0.06***
Interest_in_Course –
(0.17) (0.16)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes
N 280 280 280
R-squared 0.15 0.11 0.21
Notes: (1) About 60% of students filled out the questionnaire.
(2) ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

In sum, to establish the validity of our behavioral measure of procrastination (StartTime), we conducted a questionnaire, which yielded the self-
reported procrastination tendency. Our analyses and results validated that our behavioral measure (StartTime) captures student procrastination.

Survey on Potential Cross-Talk

In study II, we conducted a post-experiment survey with students (four sections across two courses). The survey questions related to cross-talk
are as follows:

• Please list the name(s) of your classmate(s) who you interacted with the most
• Have you discussed the message you got with your classmate? (Yes or No)

In Study III, we asked two questions related to cross-talk as follows:

• Did you discuss the message you received with anyone?

• If yes, please list their full names.

From Table F2, the response rates for both studies are around 60%, which is higher than that of a typical survey of 30~40%. We looked into
the responses and found that those non-responders are less active students in the class (e.g., absent more frequently). In other words, non-
responders are less likely to be cross-talkers because they are less likely to meet other students in the class. The imperfect response rate would
not be very likely to affect the experimental results.

Table F2. Survey Summary of Cross-Talk

Study II Study III
Number(Percent) Number(Percent)
Number of responses (response rate) 147 (59%) 135 (62%)
Number (Percentage) of students who discussed with others 26 (17%) 19 (14%)
Number (Percentage) of students who discussed and their messages
9 (6%) 11 (8%)
different from the classmates who they interacted with
Note: For the response rate of Study III, we only consider students who received messages.

190 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Li, Wang, & Wang/Peer Effects in Competitive Environments

Table F3. Regression Results after Excluding Cross-Talk (Study II&III)

Excluding Students Who Discussed Excluding Students Who Discussed and
DV: StartTime with Others Messages Different
52.51*** 53.44***
Intercept
(7.39) (7.33)
1.45 1.16
Treatment
(4.99) (4.85)
-15.48*** -16.62***
Male
(4.54) (4.45)
11.69* 11.59*
Treatment*Male
(6.38) (6.21)
Section Fixed Effect Yes Yes
N 307 332
R-squared 0.30 0.29
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 191

Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.