...
首页> 外文期刊>The Review of Economic Studies >What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts
【24h】

What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts

机译:什么激励努力? 证据和专家预测

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

How much do different monetary and non-monetary motivators induce costly effort? Does the effectiveness line up with the expectations of researchers and with results in the literature? We conduct a large-scale real-effort experiment with eighteen treatment arms. We examine the effect of (1) standard incentives; (2) behavioural factors like social preferences and reference dependence; and (3) non-monetary inducements from psychology. We find that (1) monetary incentives work largely as expected, including a very low piece rate treatment which does not crowd out effort; (2) the evidence is partly consistent with standard behavioural models, including warm glow, though we do not find evidence of probability weighting; (3) the psychological motivators are effective, but less so than incentives. We then compare the results to forecasts by 208 academic 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. As a further comparison, we present a meta-analysis of similar treatments in the literature. Overall, predictions based on the literature are correlated with, but underperform, the expert forecasts.
机译:不同的货币和非货币促进者有多少促使成本贡献?有效性是否符合研究人员的期望和文学的结果?我们进行了大规模的实际努力试验,有18个治疗武器。我们检查(1)标准激励措施的效果; (2)行为因素,如社会偏好和参考依赖; (3)心理学的非货币诱导。我们发现(1)货币激励措施在很大程度上按预期工作,包括一个非常低的速率处理,不挤出努力; (2)证据与标准行为模型部分一致,包括温暖发光,尽管我们没有找到概率加权的证据; (3)心理刺激者是有效的,但比激励措施更少。然后,我们将结果与208个学术专家预测结果进行比较。平均而言,专家预计几个关键特征,如心理刺激者的有效性。然而,相当大的专家份额期望众所周知,概率加权和纯粹的利他主义。作为进一步的比较,我们提出了文献中类似治疗的荟萃分析。总体而言,基于文献的预测与专家预测相关但表现不佳。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号