Real-effort Laboratory Experiment Research Articles

Peer effects, self-selection and dishonesty

If individuals tend to behave like their reference group, is it because of peer effects, self-selection, or both? Using a peer effect model allowing for conformity and link formation, we designed a real-effort laboratory experiment in which individuals could misreport their performance and select their peers. Our results reveal both a preference for conformity and homophilous link formation, but only among individuals cheating in isolation. This suggests that such link formation was not motivated by a taste for similarity but by acquiring self-serving information. Importantly, we reject the presence of a self-selection bias in the peer effect estimates by showing that the size of peer effects is similar when identical peers were randomly assigned and when individuals selected them.

Agent sorting by incentive systems in mission firms: Implications for healthcare and other credence goods markets

We develop a model of expert decision-making to predict how three different contract designs (capitation, fee-for-service, and salary) affect experts’ decisions to enter mission firms producing credence goods and the impact on customer outcomes thereafter. The model demonstrates that contracts that constrain maximum earnings (e.g., capitation and salary) will likely reduce the total supply of experts to mission firms but maintain experts who are highly mission-motivated and thereby, improve customer outcomes. We test the model’s predictions with a real-effort laboratory experiment, which varied the contracts offered by a mission firm producing credence goods, holding constant an outside option in a non-mission firm. Our results demonstrate the potential trade-off between labor supply to the mission firm and customer outcomes across the different incentive systems as predicted by our model.

Loss-Framed Incentives and Employee (Mis-)Behavior

This paper explores how loss-framed incentives affect behavior in a multitasking environment in which participants have more than one way of recovering (expected) losses. In a real-effort laboratory experiment, we offer participants task incentives that are framed as either a reward (gain) or penalty (loss). We study their responses along three dimensions: performance in the incentivized task, theft, and voluntary provision of help. We find that framing incentives as a penalty rather than as a reward does not significantly improve task performance, but it increases theft and leads to a small and insignificant reduction in the share of participants willing to help the experimenter. Secondary analyses based on our theoretical framework help us pin down the mechanism at play and suggest that loss aversion drives participants’ response. Our findings have important implications for incentive design in practice. This paper was accepted by Axel Ockenfels, behavioral economics and decision analysis.

Unexpected Costs of Performance Incentives with Production Uncertainty: Theory and Evidence from a Real-Effort Laboratory Experiment

Unexpected Costs of Performance Incentives with Production Uncertainty: Theory and Evidence from a Real-Effort Laboratory Experiment

Shocking gift exchange

We study how a gift exchange labor market reacts to the occurrence of negative shocks. One-round shocks may hit either workers’ wages or employers’ earnings (via worker productivity). In our model, other-regarding preferences suffice to predict gift exchange and wages above the competitive level. Wage rigidity is predicted if we add wage illusion and loss aversion. Using a real-effort laboratory experiment, we find support for the model. When there are no shocks, there is gift exchange. After a wage shock we see strong nominal wage rigidity and no impact on workers’ effort, as predicted. Rigidity is also observed after a productivity shock, but here we do observe increases in effort, especially at low wages. The latter is contrary to the model predictions and suggests that productivity shocks alter gift-exchange patterns. We conclude that the wage rigidity often observed in the field can be explained by boundedly rational workers with social preferences.

Homophily, Peer Effects, and Dishonesty

If individuals tend to behave like their peers, is it because of conformity, that is, the preference of people to align behavior with the behavior of their peers; homophily, that is, the tendency of people to bond with similar others; or both? We address this question in the context of an ethical dilemma. Using a peer effect model allowing for homophily, we designed a real-effort laboratory experiment in which individuals could misreport their performance to earn more. Our results reveal a preference for conformity and for homophily in the selection of peers, but only among participants who were cheating in isolation. The size of peer effects is similar when identical peers were randomly assigned and when they were selected by individuals. We thus jointly reject the presence of a self-selection bias in the peer effect estimates and of a link strength effect.

Homophily, Peer Effects, and Dishonesty

If individuals tend to behave like their peers, is it because of conformity, that is, the preference of people to align behavior with the behavior of their peers; homophily, that is, the tendency of people to bond with similar others; or both? We address this question in the context of an ethical dilemma. Using a peer effect model allowing for homophily, we designed a real-effort laboratory experiment in which individuals could misreport their performance to earn more. Our results reveal a preference for conformity and for homophily in the selection of peers, but only among participants who were cheating in isolation. The size of peer effects is similar when identical peers were randomly assigned and when they were selected by individuals. We thus jointly reject the presence of a self-selection bias in the peer effect estimates and of a link strength effect

Merit, Luck, and Taxes: Societal Reward Rules, Self-Interest, and Ideology in a Real-Effort Voting Experiment

When are high earnings considered a legitimate target for redistribution, and when not? We design a real-effort laboratory experiment in which we manipulate the assignment of payrates (societal “reward rules”) that translate performance on a real-effort counting task into pre-tax earnings. We then ask subjects to vote on a flat tax rate in groups of three. We distinguish three treatment conditions: the same payrate for all group members (“equal” reward rule), differential (low, medium, and high) but random payrates (“luck” rule), and differential payrates based on subjects’ performance on a quiz with voluntary preparation opportunity (“merit” rule). Self-interest is the dominant tax voting motivation. Tax levels are lower under “merit” rule than under “luck” rule, and merit reasoning overrides political ideology. But information is needed to activate merit reasoning. Both these latter effects are present only when voters have “full merit knowledge” that signals precisely how others obtained their incomes.

Merit, Luck and Taxes: Societal Reward Rules, Self-Interest and Ideology in a Real-Effort Voting Experiment

When are high earnings considered a legitimate target for redistribution, and when not? We design a real-effort laboratory experiment in which we manipulate the assignment of payrates (societal ‘reward rules’) that translate performance on a real-effort counting task into pre-tax earnings. We then ask subjects to vote on a flat tax rate in groups of three. We distinguish three treatment conditions: the same payrate for all group members (‘equal’ reward rule), differential (low, medium and high) but random payrates (‘luck’ rule), and differential payrates based on subjects’ performance on a quiz with voluntary preparation opportunity (‘merit’ rule). Self-interest is the dominant tax voting motivation. Tax levels are lower under ‘merit’ rule than under ‘luck’ rule, and merit reasoning overrides political ideology. But information is needed to activate merit reasoning. Both these latter effects are present only when voters have ‘full merit knowledge’ that signals precisely how others obtained their incomes.

Time is (Not) Money - Incentive Effects of Granting Leisure Time

I study how a gift of more leisure time affects employees’ performance in a real-effort laboratory experiment. Results show that a monetary gift of a 75% wage increase does not alter employee’s performance, compared to a baseline of no gift. A comparable gift of more leisure time, however, significantly increases employee performance by 25%. The mechanism for this is a significant reduction in on-the-job leisure (Internet) consumption by 45%. An online survey experiment among human resource managers provides some external validity. Managers anticipate the mechanism of on-the-job leisure reduction and point to possible further advantages of leisure time gifts over monetary gifts. This study contributes to the design of informal management controls in organizations and shows the influence of on-the-job leisure as distortionary behavior on the effective working time.

A behavioral rebound effect

Pro-environmental behaviors are an important avenue for mitigating environmental impacts. Technological improvements are also a vital tool for reducing environmental damage from consumption. However, their benefits are partially offset by the direct rebound effect, whereby a consumer rationally responds to an increase in resource use efficiency by consuming more. This paper investigates whether technological improvement might also reduce behaviorally motivated mitigation of environmental damage. A behavioral rebound effect operates through two channels. First, pro-environmental effort is reduced after a decrease in marginal environmental damage. Second, moral licensing reduces pro-environmental effort further when technological change is endogenous. I develop a novel real effort laboratory experiment to identify these behaviors. I find a positive behavioral rebound effect. I also find evidence consistent with moral licensing, which is strongest among subjects with a higher degree of pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs. Subjects’ baseline level of pro-environmental effort is driven by beliefs about social norms.

Conveniently dependent or naively overconfident? An experimental study on the reaction to external help

The rapid development and diffusion of new technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence makes life more convenient. At the same time, people may develop overdependence on technology to simplify everyday tasks or to reduce the level of effort required to accomplish them. We conduct a two-phase real-effort laboratory experiment to assess how external assistance affects subsequent revealed preferences for the convenience of a lower level of effort versus monetary rewards requiring greater effort. The results suggest that men treated with external help in the first phase tend to choose more difficult options with potentially higher monetary rewards. In contrast, after being treated with external help, women exhibit a stronger propensity to utilize the convenience of an easier task and are less likely to choose a more difficult option that carries higher potential earnings.

Gender and Peer Effects in Social Networks

We investigate whether peer effects at work differ by gender and whether gender differences in peer effects - if any - depend on work organization. We develop a social network model with gender heterogeneity that we test in a real-effort laboratory experiment. We compare sequential networks in which information flows from peers to the worker and simultaneous networks where it disseminates bi-directionally. We identify strong gender differences as females disregard their peers’ performance in simultaneous networks, while males are influenced by peers in both networks. Females may perceive the environment in simultaneous networks as being more competitive than in sequential networks.

Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks

We investigate whether peer effects at work differ by gender and whether the differences -if any- depend on work organization. We develop a social network model with gender heterogeneity that we test using a real-effort laboratory experiment. We compare unidirectional networks (with a one-way information flow) and bidirectional networks (with a two-way information flow). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that competitive rivalry is the basic mechanism through which peer effects influence individuals’ behavior. Males and females behave differently. The former are influenced by their peers in both types of networks whereas the latter are indifferent to their peers’ performance in bidirectional networks. An interpretation is that females perceive the bidirectional networks as being more competitive.

Does a short-term increase in incentives boost performance?

If agents are exposed to continual competitive pressure, how does a short-term variation of the severity of the competition affect agents’ performance? In a real-effort laboratory experiment, we study a one-time increase in incentives in a sequence of equally incentivized contests. Our results suggest that a short-term increase in incentives induces a behavioral response but does not boost total performance.

The effect of economic cycles on job satisfaction in a two-sector economy

Economic growth improves the material well-being of all workers. However, when remuneration in the public sector is less sensitive to economic cycles than in the private sector, as is typically the case, economic growth will worsen the position of workers in the public sector relative to workers in the private sector, even though their income improves in absolute terms. As a result, job satisfaction may be countercyclical in the public sector. We test this counterintuitive hypothesis in a real-effort laboratory experiment that simulates an economy with two sectors differing only in their remuneration scheme. Economic cycles are introduced in order to test for their effect on job satisfaction and productivity in each sector. We find that job satisfaction in the “public” sector is negatively correlated with the state of the economy. This effect, however, does not carry over to productivity: even though an increase in a worker's productivity in the public sector reduces his relative income, in comparison to a similar private sector worker, we find that this does not have a negative effect on job satisfaction.

Gender and Peer Effects on Performance in Social Networks

We investigate whether peer effects at work differ by gender and whether gender differences in peer effects - if any - depend on work organization. We develop a social network model with gender heterogeneity that we test in a real-effort laboratory experiment. We compare sequential networks in which information flows from peers to the worker and simultaneous networks where it disseminates bi-directionally. We identify strong gender differences as females disregard their peers’ performance in simultaneous networks, while males are influenced by peers in both networks. Females may perceive the environment in simultaneous networks as being more competitive than in sequential networks.

Does a Short-Term Increase in Incentives Boost Performance?

If agents are exposed to continual competitive pressure, how does a short-term variation of the severity of the competition affect agents’ performance? In a real-effort laboratory experiment, we study a one-time increase in incentives in a sequence of equally incentivized contests. Our results suggest that a short-term increase in incentives induces a behavioral response but does not boost total performance.

Gender and Peer Effects in Social Networks

We investigate whether peer effects at work differ by gender and whether the gender difference in peer effects-if any-depends on work organization, precisely the structure of social networks. We develop a social network model with gender heterogeneity that we test by means of a real-effort laboratory experiment. We compare sequential networks in which information on peers flows exclusively downward (from peers to the worker) and simultaneous networks where it disseminates bi-directionally along an undirected line (from peers to the worker and from the worker to peers). We identify strong gender differences in peer effects, as males' effort increases with peers' performance in both types of network, whereas females behave conditionally. While they are influenced by peers in sequential networks, females disregard their peers' performance when information flows in both directions. We reject that the difference between networks is driven by having one's performance observed by others or by the presence of peers in the same session in simultaneous networks. We interpret the gender difference in terms of perception of a higher competitiveness of the environment in simultaneous than in sequential networks because of the bi-directional flow of information.

Tax aversion in labor supply

In a real-effort laboratory experiment, labor supply decreases more with the introduction of a tax than with a financially equivalent drop in wages. This “tax aversion” is large in magnitude: when we decompose the productivity decrease that arises from taxation, we estimate that 40% is due to the lower net wage and the remaining 60% to tax aversion. This tax aversion affects labor supply more on the extensive margin (working less) than on the intensive margin (being less productive while working). The aversion is equally strong whether tax revenue goes to the U.S. government or back to the experimenter (a “laboratory tax”). We discuss the implications of our results for the relationship between labor supply and taxation.