IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v8y1992i2p374-408.html

Incentive compensation schemes: Experimental calibration of the rationality hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • ALISON J. KIRBY

Abstract

. Behavior inconsistent with expected utility maximization is widely observed and explanations for it abound. The purpose of this research is to identify conditions under which choice behavior is most likely to be consistent with EUM predictions, in order to ensure the successful implementation of economic prescriptions derived under the assumption of EUM rationality. Specifically, a laboratory experiment is used to test the hypothesis that the distinctness between alternatives in a menu of contracts is crucial in determining the likelihood that agent choices are consistent with EUM predictions, and consequently, in the case of incentive compatible contracts, leads to accurate revelation of private information. The results support this hypothesis. Résumé. L'on observe fréquemment des comportements incompatibles avec la maximisation espérée de l'utilité, et les explications à ce sujet foisonnent. L'étude qui suit a pour but de déterminer dans quelles conditions le comportement de choix est le plus susceptible d'être conforme aux prédictions relatives à la maximisation espérée de l'utilité (MEU), et de garantir ainsi le succès de l'implantation des prescriptions économiques dérivées de l'hypothèse de la rationalité de la MEU. De façon plus précise, l'auteure procède à une expérience de laboratoire pour vérifier l'hypothèse selon laquelle la clarté des différentes possibilités d'un menu de contrats est cruciale dans la détermination de la probabilité que les choix du mandataire soient conformes aux prédictions relatives à la MEU et qu'en conséquence, dans le cas de contrats qui se prêtent à l'application de mesures d'incitation, cette clarté ne masque pas la révélation de la véritable information privilégiée. Les résultats de l'étude confirment cette hypothèse.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison J. Kirby, 1992. "Incentive compensation schemes: Experimental calibration of the rationality hypothesis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 374-408, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:8:y:1992:i:2:p:374-408
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1992.tb00850.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1992.tb00850.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1992.tb00850.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reichelstein, Stefan & Osband, Kent, 1984. "Incentives in government contracts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 257-270, July.
    2. Martin L. Weitzman, 1976. "The New Soviet Incentive Model," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 251-257, Spring.
    3. Waller, William S., 1988. "Slack in participative budgeting: The joint effect of a truth-inducing pay scheme and risk preferences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 87-98, January.
    4. Baiman, S & Lewis, Bl, 1989. "An Experiment Testing The Behavioral Equivalence Of Strategically Equivalent Employment Contracts," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 1-20.
    5. Joyce E. Berg & Lane A. Daley & John W. Dickhaut & John R. O'Brien, 1986. "Controlling Preferences for Lotteries on Units of Experimental Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(2), pages 281-306.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John O'Brien, 1992. "Discussion of “Incentive compensation schemes: Experimental calibration of the rationality hypothesisâ€," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 415-418, March.
    2. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    3. Nicholas Dopuch, 1992. "Discussion of “Incentive compensation schemes: Experimental calibration of the rationality hypothesisâ€," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 409-414, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arleta Rasmußen, 2015. "Reporting behavior: a literature review of experimental studies," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 283-311, June.
    2. R. Lynn Hannan & Frederick W. Rankin & Kristy L. Towry, 2006. "The Effect of Information Systems on Honesty in Managerial Reporting: A Behavioral Perspective," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 885-918, December.
    3. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    4. Christian Daumoser & Bernhard Hirsch & Matthias Sohn, 2018. "Honesty in budgeting: a review of morality and control aspects in the budgetary slack literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 115-159, August.
    5. Chee W. Chow & Mark K. Hirst & Michael D. Shields, 1994. "Motivating Truthful Subordinate Reporting: An Experimental Investigation in a Two†Subordinate Context," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 699-720, March.
    6. Fisher, Joseph G. & Frederickson, James R. & Peffer, Sean A., 2006. "Budget negotiations in multi-period settings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 511-528, August.
    7. Feldmann, Martin & Müller, Stephanie, 2003. "An incentive scheme for true information providing in Supply Chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 63-73, April.
    8. Joyce Berg & Don Coursey & John Dickhaut, 1990. "Experimental methods in accounting: A discussion of recurring issues," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 825-849, March.
    9. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2003. "Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 169-249.
    10. Martini, Jan Thomas & Niemann, Rainer & Simons, Dirk, 2007. "Transfer pricing or formula apportionment? Tax-induced distortions of multinationals' investment and production decisions," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 27, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    11. Christian Lohmann & Sandro Lombardo, 2014. "Resource allocation within a budgeting game: truthful reporting as the dominant strategy under collusion," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 33-54, September.
    12. William S. Waller, 1994. "Discussion of “Motivating Truthful Subordinate Reporting: An Experimental Investigation in a Two†Subordinate Contextâ€," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 721-734, March.
    13. Jan Thomas Martini & Rainer Niemann & Dirk Simons, 2007. "Transfer Pricing or Formula Apportionment? Tax-Induced Distortions of Multinationals’ Investment and Production Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2020, CESifo.
    14. Markus C. Arnold & Eva Ponick, 2006. "Kommunikation im Groves-Mechanismus — Ergebnisse eines Laborexperiments," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 89-120, February.
    15. Charpentier, Claes, 1998. "Budgetary Participation in a Public Service Organization," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 3, Stockholm School of Economics.
    16. Benard, Jean, 1987. "Socialist incentive schemes and price planning," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 8735, CEPREMAP.
    17. Holthausen, Robert W. & Larcker, David F. & Sloan, Richard G., 1995. "Annual bonus schemes and the manipulation of earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 29-74, February.
    18. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    19. Parker, Robert J. & Kyj, Larissa, 2006. "Vertical information sharing in the budgeting process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 27-45, January.
    20. Glen Archibald & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2002. "A New Variant of the Winner's Curse in a Coasian Contracting Game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 155-172, October.

    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:wly:coacre:v:8:y:1992:i:2:p:374-408. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.