IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v104y2022i1p67-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Monetary Incentives Undermine Performance on Intrinsically Enjoyable Tasks? A Field Test

Author

Listed:
  • Constanca Esteves-Sorenson

    (Yale University)

  • Robert Broce

    (Southern Connecticut State University)

Abstract

Economists have long been intrigued by an influential literature in psychology positing that monetary pay lowers performance on enjoyable tasks by crowding out agents' intrinsic interest in them. But typical experiments in this literature do not report a full set of performance metrics, which might reveal conflicting evidence on crowding out. Further, they may suffer from confounds. To evaluate these issues, we review over 100 prior tests and run a field experiment building on the canonical two-session test for crowding out wherein agents receive pay for an interesting activity in session 1 that is withdrawn unexpectedly in session 2. We test whether pay harms performance using a comprehensive set of performance measures, and if so, whether unmet pay expectations might also contribute to this decline. Our results on output, productivity and quits are most consistent with a standard economics model than with a crowding-out one. Additional, though more speculative, evidence suggests that unmet pay expectations may harm output quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Constanca Esteves-Sorenson & Robert Broce, 2022. "Do Monetary Incentives Undermine Performance on Intrinsically Enjoyable Tasks? A Field Test," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(1), pages 67-84, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:104:y:2022:i:1:p:67-84
    DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00947
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/rest_a_00947?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:tpr:restat:v:104:y:2022:i:1:p:67-84. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.