This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Monetary incentives, what are they good for?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Daniel Read
Abstract

This paper is a critical reflection on the use of monetary incentives in economic experiments. The argument is that incentives have their effect through their influence on one or more of three factors: (1) cognitive exertion ; (2) motivational focus ; (3) emotional triggers . I suggest that these effects can often be achieved without monetary incentives, and incentives are not even guaranteed to achieve those effects. There are also disadvantages to requiring the use of incentives in experiments. The paper concludes by suggesting there is no basis for requiring the use of real incentives to do experimental economics.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=J04T661834L39454
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Taylor and Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Economic Methodology.

Volume (Year): 12 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 265-276
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:12:y:2005:i:2:p:265-276

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&id=104715

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/subscription.html

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: experimental methods; incentives;

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December. [Downloadable!]
  3. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-78, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias In Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  5. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2006. "Two-Stage Boundedly Rational Choice Procedures: Theory and Experimental Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 2341, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Ortona, Guido & Ottone, Stefania & Ponzano, Ferruccio & Scacciati, Francesco, 2008. "Some differences in revealed behaviour under different inquiry methods," P.O.L.I.S. department's Working Papers 112, Department of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS. [Downloadable!]
  3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
    • Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Choice over Time," Working Papers 605, Queen Mary, University of London, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-10.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.