What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts

Stefano DellaVigna, Devin G. Pope
{"title":"What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts","authors":"Stefano DellaVigna, Devin G. Pope","doi":"10.1093/RESTUD/RDX033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How much do different monetary and non-monetary motivators induce costly effort? Does the effectiveness line up with the expectations of researchers? We present the results of a large-scale real-effort experiment with 18 treatment arms. We compare the effect of three motivators: (i) standard incentives; (ii) behavioral factors like present-bias, reference dependence, and social preferences; and (iii) non-monetary inducements from psychology. In addition, we elicit forecasts by behavioral experts regarding the effectiveness of the treatments, allowing us to compare results to expectations. We find that (i) monetary incentives work largely as expected, including a very low piece rate treatment which does not crowd out incentives; (ii) the evidence is partly consistent with standard behavioral models, including warm glow, though we do not find evidence of probability weighting; (iii) the psychological motivators are effective, but less so than incentives. We then compare the results to forecasts by 208 experts. On average, the experts anticipate several key features, like the effectiveness of psychological motivators. A sizeable share of experts, however, expects crowd-out, probability weighting, and pure altruism, counterfactually. This heterogeneity does not reflect field of training, as behavioral economists, standard economists, and psychologists make similar forecasts. Using a simple model, we back out key parameters for social preferences, time preferences, and reference dependence, comparing expert beliefs and experimental results.","PeriodicalId":325993,"journal":{"name":"Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper Series","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"303","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/RESTUD/RDX033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 303

Abstract

How much do different monetary and non-monetary motivators induce costly effort? Does the effectiveness line up with the expectations of researchers? We present the results of a large-scale real-effort experiment with 18 treatment arms. We compare the effect of three motivators: (i) standard incentives; (ii) behavioral factors like present-bias, reference dependence, and social preferences; and (iii) non-monetary inducements from psychology. In addition, we elicit forecasts by behavioral experts regarding the effectiveness of the treatments, allowing us to compare results to expectations. We find that (i) monetary incentives work largely as expected, including a very low piece rate treatment which does not crowd out incentives; (ii) the evidence is partly consistent with standard behavioral models, including warm glow, though we do not find evidence of probability weighting; (iii) the psychological motivators are effective, but less so than incentives. We then compare the results to forecasts by 208 experts. On average, the experts anticipate several key features, like the effectiveness of psychological motivators. A sizeable share of experts, however, expects crowd-out, probability weighting, and pure altruism, counterfactually. This heterogeneity does not reflect field of training, as behavioral economists, standard economists, and psychologists make similar forecasts. Using a simple model, we back out key parameters for social preferences, time preferences, and reference dependence, comparing expert beliefs and experimental results.
努力的动力是什么?证据和专家预测
不同的货币和非货币激励因素在多大程度上诱导了昂贵的努力?效果是否符合研究人员的预期?我们介绍了18个治疗组的大规模实际努力实验的结果。我们比较了三种激励因素的效果:(i)标准激励;(2)行为及时性偏见等因素,参考依赖,和社会偏好;从心理学和(iii)非货币性诱惑。此外,我们从行为专家那里得到关于治疗效果的预测,使我们能够将结果与预期进行比较。我们发现(1)货币激励在很大程度上符合预期,包括非常低的计件工资待遇,这不会排挤激励;(ii)证据部分符合标准行为模型,包括暖光,尽管我们没有发现概率加权的证据;(3)心理激励是有效的,但不如激励有效。然后我们比较结果和专家预测到208年。平均而言,专家们预测了几个关键特征,比如心理激励因素的有效性。相当大份额的专家,然而,预计减少,概率权重,和纯粹的利他主义,着。这种异质性并没有反映出训练领域,因为行为经济学家、标准经济学家和心理学家都做出了类似的预测。利用一个简单的模型,我们反演了社会偏好、时间偏好和参考依赖的关键参数,比较了专家的观点和实验结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信