IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/framed/00822.html

Using AI to Generate Option C Scaling Ideas: A Case Study in Early Education

Author

Listed:
  • Faith Fatchen
  • John List
  • Francesca Pagnotta

Abstract

In recent years, field experiments have reshaped policy worldwide, but scaling ideas remains a thorny challenge. Perhaps the most important issue facing policymakers today is deciding which ideas to scale. One approach to attenuate this information problem is to augment traditional A/B experimental designs to address questions of scalability from the beginning. List 2024 denotes this approach as “Option C†thinking. Using early education as a case study, we show how AI can overcome a critical barrier in Option C thinking – generating viable options for scaling experimentation. By integrating AI-driven insights, this approach strengthens the link between controlled trials and large-scale implementation, ensuring the production of policy-based evidence for effective decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Faith Fatchen & John List & Francesca Pagnotta, 2025. "Using AI to Generate Option C Scaling Ideas: A Case Study in Early Education," Framed Field Experiments 00822, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00822.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    3. Christopher S. Cotton & Brent R. Hickman & Joseph P. Price, 2022. "Affirmative Action and Human Capital Investment: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 157-185.
    4. Flavio Cunha & James J. Heckman, 2008. "Formulating, Identifying and Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    5. Marco Castillo & John A. List & Ragan Petrie & Anya Samek, 2024. "Detecting Drivers of Behavior at an Early Age: Evidence from a Longitudinal Field Experiment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(12), pages 3942-3977.
    6. Burgess, Simon & Metcalfe, Robert & Sadoff, Sally, 2021. "Understanding the response to financial and non-financial incentives in education: Field experimental evidence using high-stakes assessments," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Alison Andrew & Orazio P. Attanasio & Raquel Bernal & Lina Cardona Sosa & Sonya Krutikova & Marta Rubio-Codina, 2024. "Preschool Quality and Child Development," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(7), pages 2304-2345.
    8. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    9. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    10. Gary Charness & Brian Jabarian & John A. List, 2025. "The next generation of experimental research with LLMs," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(5), pages 833-835, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John A. List, 2026. "The Economics of Scaling Early Childhood Programs: Lessons from the Chicago School," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 134(1), pages 1-48.
    2. Shusaku Sasaki & Takunori Ishihara & Hiroki Kato, 2026. "Rebate versus Matching, Again: How Opt-in Reshapes the Effectiveness of Price-Equivalent Subsidies," Papers 2607.03113, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    2. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    3. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    4. Buckley, Neil & Cuff, Katherine & Hurley, Jeremiah & Mestelman, Stuart & Thomas, Stephanie & Cameron, David, 2016. "Should I stay or should I go? Exit options within mixed systems of public and private health care finance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 62-77.
    5. Dolan, Paul & Metcalfe, Robert, 2013. "Neighbors, knowledge, and nuggets: two natural field experiments on the role of incentives on energy conservation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51563, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Jana Gallus, 2016. "Fostering Voluntary Contributions to a Public Good: A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment at Wikipedia," Natural Field Experiments 00552, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Yeomans, Mike & Herberich, David, 2014. "An experimental test of the effect of negative social norms on energy-efficient investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 187-197.
    8. Benjamin Ho & John Taber & Gregory Poe & Antonio Bento, 2016. "The Effects of Moral Licensing and Moral Cleansing in Contingent Valuation and Laboratory Experiments on the Demand to Reduce Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 317-340, June.
    9. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. repec:rza:wpaper:227 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Majid Ahmadi & Nathan Durst & Jeff Lachman & John A. List & Mason List & Noah List & Atom T. Vayalinkal, 2022. "Nothing Propinks Like Propinquity: Using Machine Learning to Estimate the Effects of Spatial Proximity in the Major League Baseball Draft," NBER Working Papers 30786, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Johannesson Magnus & Östling Robert & Ranehill Eva, 2010. "The Effect of Competition on Physical Activity: A Randomized Trial," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, September.
    13. de Koning, Bart K. & Fouarge, Didier & Dur, Robert, 2025. "Correcting Beliefs About Job Opportunities and Wages: A Field Experiment on Education Choices," IZA Discussion Papers 17951, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Therese Lindahl & Anne-Sophie Crépin & Caroline Schill, 2016. "Potential Disasters can Turn the Tragedy into Success," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(3), pages 657-676, November.
    15. Omar Al‐Ubaydli & Steffen Andersen & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2015. "Carrots That Look Like Sticks: Toward an Understanding of Multitasking Incentive Schemes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 538-561, January.
    16. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Feltovich, Nick & Grossman, Philip J., 2015. "How does the effect of pre-play suggestions vary with group size? Experimental evidence from a threshold public-good game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 263-280.
    18. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Austgulen, Marthe H. & Skuland, Silje & Schjøll, Alexander & Alfnes, Frode, 2015. "Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumptions and eat more climate friendly," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202757, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. List, John A. & Neilson, William S. & Price, Michael K., 2016. "The effects of group composition in a strategic environment: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-85.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00822. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Franco Daniel Albino (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.