IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/faseco/30829771.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay be Coercive and Repugnant?

Author

Listed:
  • Ambuehl, Sandro
  • Niederle, Muriel
  • Roth, Alvin E.

Abstract

IRBs can disallow high incentives they deem coercive. A vignette study on MTurk concerning participation in medical trials shows that a substantial minority of subjects concurs. They think high incentives cause more regret, and that more people would be better off without the opportunity to participate. We model observers as judging the ethicality of incentives by partially using their own utility. The model predicts that payments are repugnant only to the extent that they affect the participation decision, and more so for larger transactions. Incentivizing poorer participants is more repugnant, and in-kind incentives are less repugnant than monetary incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambuehl, Sandro & Niederle, Muriel & Roth, Alvin E., 2015. "More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay be Coercive and Repugnant?," Scholarly Articles 30829771, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hrv:faseco:30829771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/30829771/Ambuehl_Niederle_Roth.AERPP_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/30829771/Ambuehl_Niederle_Roth.AERPP_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    2. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    3. Kaushik Basu, 2007. "Coercion, contract and the limits of the market," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(4), pages 559-579, December.
    4. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594.
    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. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Projective Paternalism," NBER Working Papers 26119, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Nicola Lacetera, 2016. "Incentives and Ethics in the Economics of Body Parts," NBER Working Papers 22673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Philip J Held & Frank McCormick & Glenn M Chertow & Thomas G Peters & John P Roberts, 2018. "Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Elias, Julio & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10187, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:130-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Cassar, Lea & Meier, Stephan, 2017. "Intentions for Doing Good Matter for Doing Well: The (Negative) Signaling Value of Prosocial Incentives," IZA Discussion Papers 11203, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Nana Adrian & Ann-Kathrin Crede & Jonas Gehrlein, 2019. "Market Interaction and the Focus on Consequences in Moral Decision Making," Diskussionsschriften dp1905, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    9. Janine Hoffart & Benjamin Scheibehenne, 2019. "Pill or bill? Influence of monetary incentives on the perceived riskiness and the ethical approval of clinical trials," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 130-134, March.
    10. Alain Naef, 2020. "Blowing against the Wind? A Narrative Approach to Central Bank Foreign Exchange Intervention," Working Papers 0188, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    11. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    12. Sandro Ambuehl, 2017. "An Offer You Can't Refuse? Testing Undue Inducement," CESifo Working Paper Series 6296, CESifo.
    13. CARBALLA SMICHOWSKI Bruno & DUCH BROWN Nestor & MARTENS Bertin, 2021. "To pool or to pull back? An economic analysis of health data pooling," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2021-06, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    15. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Ethics and market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 705-720.
    16. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    17. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    18. Kübler, Dorothea & Schmid, Julia & Stüber, Robert, 2018. "Gender discrimination in hiring across occupations: a nationally-representative vignette study," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55, pages 215-229.
    19. Christina Leuker & Lasare Samartzidis & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J Pleskac, 2020. "When money talks: Judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    20. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    21. Kübler, Dorothea & Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Repugnant Transactions: The Role of Agency and Extreme Consequences," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264052, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    22. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2018. "Equity Concerns are Narrowly Framed," NBER Working Papers 25326, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    2. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    3. Piotr Dworczak & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour, 2021. "Redistribution Through Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1665-1698, July.
    4. Akyel, Dominic, 2014. "Ökonomisierung und moralischer Wandel: Die Ausweitung von Marktbeziehungen als Prozess der moralischen Bewertung von Gütern," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/13, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    5. Viola S. Ackfeld, 2020. "The Aversion to Monetary Incentives for Changing Behavior," Working Paper Series in Economics 100, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    6. Marina Della Giusta & Maria Laura Di Tommaso & Sarah Jewell & Francesca Bettio, 2021. "Quashing demand or changing clients? Evidence of criminalization of sex work in the United Kingdom," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(2), pages 527-544, October.
    7. Marie Daou & Alain Marciano, 2022. "Commodification: The traditional pro-market arguments," Post-Print hal-03876907, HAL.
    8. Elias, Julio & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10187, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    10. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Markets, Morality, and Economic Growth: Competition Affects Utilitarian Judgment," IAST Working Papers 16-45, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    11. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Ethics and market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 705-720.
    12. Jason Monios, 2023. "The Moral Limits of Market-Based Mechanisms: An Application to the International Maritime Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 283-299, October.
    13. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    14. Nicola Lacetera, 2016. "Incentives and Ethics in the Economics of Body Parts," NBER Working Papers 22673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Philip J Held & Frank McCormick & Glenn M Chertow & Thomas G Peters & John P Roberts, 2018. "Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Beckert, Jens & Wehinger, Frank, 2011. "In the shadow illegal markets and economic sociology," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    17. Sandro Ambuehl, 2017. "An Offer You Can't Refuse? Testing Undue Inducement," CESifo Working Paper Series 6296, CESifo.
    18. Pierre Januard, 2022. "At the Boundaries of the Trading Sphere: The Appearance of the 'Just Price' in Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on the Sentences," Working Papers halshs-03658417, HAL.
    19. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    20. Humphreys, Brad & Ruseski, Jane & Zhou, Li, 2015. "Physical Activity, Present Bias, and Habit Formation: Theory and Evidence from Longitudinal Data," Working Papers 2015-6, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:hrv:faseco:30829771. 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: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deharus.html .

    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.