IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2510.27625.html

Hiring Intrinsically Motivated Agents: A Principal's Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Leal

Abstract

Employers are concerned not only with a prospective worker's ability, but also their propensity to avoid shirking. This paper proposes a new experimental framework to study how Principals trade-off measures of ability and prosocial behavior when ranking Agents for independent jobs. Subjects participate in a simulated, incentivized job market. In an initial session, subjects are Workers and generate a database of signals and job results. Managers in subsequent sessions observe the signals of Worker behavior and ability and job details before a rank-and-value task, ranking and reporting a value for each Worker for two distinct jobs. Results highlight Managers' preference for ability over prosocial behavior on average, especially for Managers in STEM fields. There is evidence of homophily: the relative value of prosocial behavior is higher for highly prosocial Managers, compensating for ability or even surpassing it in value.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Leal, 2025. "Hiring Intrinsically Motivated Agents: A Principal's Dilemma," Papers 2510.27625, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.27625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.27625
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alekseev, Aleksandr & Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2017. "Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 48-59.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fatemeh Mokhtarzadeh & Luba Petersen, 2021. "Coordinating expectations through central bank projections," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 883-918, September.
    2. Anabel Belaus & Cecilia Reyna & Esteban Freidin, 2018. "Testing the effect of cooperative/competitive priming on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen, 2020. "Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 472-493.
    4. Attallah, May & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2022. "Non-monetary incentives for sustainable biomass harvest: An experimental approach," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2020. "Whistleblower protection: Theory and experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Fischer, Sabine & Grosch, Kerstin, 2025. "Contract breach with overconfident expectations: Experimental evidence on reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 145-163.
    7. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    8. repec:osf:osfxxx:b5682_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Maria Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2019. "The power of words in a petty corruption experiment," Working Papers 18/2019, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    10. Jun Hu, 2021. "Asymmetric punishment, Leniency and Harassment Bribes in China: a selective survey," Working Papers hal-03119491, HAL.
    11. Cecchini Manara, Virginia & Ciscato, Eleonora & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2025. "Back to the future: An experiment on ecological restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    12. Maria Eduarda Fernandes & Marieta Valente, 2018. "When Is Green Too Rosy? Evidence from a Laboratory Market Experiment on Green Goods and Externalities," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Masiliūnas, Aidas & Nax, Heinrich H., 2020. "Framing and repeated competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 604-619.
    14. Dimant, Eugen & van Kleef, Gerben A. & Shalvi, Shaul, 2020. "Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 247-266.
    15. Kamei, Kenju & Putterman, Louis & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2023. "Civic engagement, the leverage effect and the accountable state," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Assessing the performance of agglomeration bonus in budget-constrained conservation auctions," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334544, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    17. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Serra, Danila, 2020. "Corruption and competition among bureaucrats: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 439-451.
    18. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    19. Yu‐Chin Hsiao & Simon Kemp & Maroš Servátka, 2020. "On the Importance of Context in Sequential Search," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(4), pages 1510-1530, April.
    20. Konstantin Chatziathanasiou & Svenja Hippel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2020. "Do rights to resistance discipline the elites? An experiment on the threat of overthrow," Munich Papers in Political Economy 08, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    21. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2023. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(4), pages 818-832, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2510.27625. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.