IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jau/wpaper/2024-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of monetary incentives and feedback on how well students calibrate their academic performance

Author

Listed:
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande

    (LEE and Department of Economics, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain)

  • Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso

    (Department of Economic Analysis, Universitat de València, Spain)

  • Aurora García-Gallego

    (LEE & Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón-Spain)

Abstract

We analyze the effectiveness of monetary incentives and/or feedback in order to improve students’ calibration of academic performance. A randomized field experiment is implemented in which undergraduate students enrolled in a Microeconomics course are offered the possibility to judge their academic performance immediately before (prediction) and after (postdiction) completing each of the three exam-multiple choice tests of their continuous evaluation. Potential (actual) miscalibration in each test is calculated as the difference between the predicted (post-dicted) grade and the actual grade. The treatment variables are monetary incentives and individual feedback since they may potentially affect students’ judgment accuracy. Different treatments allow for the analysis of the effect of one of the variables alone or the joint effect of introducing the two variables. The main result is that potential and actual miscalibration are independent of the treatment variables. Our data analysis controls for confounding factors like students’ cognitive ability, academic record, risk attitudes and personality traits. Our data reflect that students’ potential miscalibration is significantly reduced in subsequent tests to the first, only in the treatment where individual feedback as well as monetary incentives are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande & Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso & Aurora García-Gallego, 2024. "The role of monetary incentives and feedback on how well students calibrate their academic performance," Working Papers 2024/01, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    • Handle: RePEc:jau:wpaper:2024/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.doctreballeco.uji.es/wpficheros/Sabater_et_al_01_2024.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luccasen, R. Andrew & Thomas, M. Kathleen, 2014. "Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 232-235.
    2. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    3. 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.
    4. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    5. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    6. Paul W. Grimes, 2002. "The Overconfident Principles of Economics Student: An Examination of a Metacognitive Skill," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 15-30, January.
    7. Montolio, Daniel & Taberner, Pere A., 2021. "Gender differences under test pressure and their impact on academic performance: A quasi-experimental design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 1065-1090.
    8. Julija Michailova & Alminas Mačiulis & Manuela Tvaronavičienė, 2017. "Overconfidence, risk aversion and individual financial decisions in experimental asset markets," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1119-1131, January.
    9. Michał Białek & Artur Domurat, 2018. "Cognitive Abilities, Analytic Cognitive Style And Overconfidence: A Commentary On Duttle (2016)," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 119-125, January.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:419-428 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Dennis Caplan & Kristian G. Mortenson & Marisa Lester, 2018. "Can incentives mitigate student overconfidence at grade forecasts?," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 27-47, January.
    12. Melissa Clark & Monica B. Fine & Cara-Lynn Scheuer, 2017. "Relationship quality in higher education marketing: the role of social media engagement," Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 40-58, January.
    13. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-49, February.
    14. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    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. Gerardo Sabater-Grande & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso, 2023. "Goals and guesses as reference points: a field experiment on student performance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 249-274, February.
    2. Steve Agnew & Neil Harrison, 2017. "The Role of Gender, Cognitive Attributes and Personality on Willingness to Take Risks," Business and Economic Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Theresa Treffers & Philipp D. Koellinger & Arnold Picot, 2016. "Do Affective States Influence Risk Preferences?," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 17(3), pages 309-335, December.
    4. Baiba Renerte & Jan Hausfeld & Torsten Twardawski, 2020. "Gender, overconfidence, and optimal group composition for investment decisions," TWI Research Paper Series 121, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    5. Treffers, T. & Koellinger, Ph.D. & Picot, A.O., 2012. "In the Mood for Risk? A Random-Assignment Experiment Addressing the Effects of Moods on Risk Preferences," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2012-014-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. Pruijssers, Jorien Louise & Singer, Gallia & Singer, Zvi & Tsang, Desmond, 2023. "Social influence pressures and the risk preferences of aspiring financial market professionals," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Comeig, Irene & Grau-Grau, Alfredo & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa & Ramírez, Federico, 2016. "Gender, self-confidence, sports, and preferences for competition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1418-1422.
    8. Irene Comeig & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Federico Ramírez, 2022. "Are credit screening contracts designed for men?," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(4), pages 883-905, December.
    9. Anwesha Bandyopadhyay & Lutfunnahar Begum & Philip J. Grossman, 2021. "Gender differences in the stability of risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-201, October.
    10. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    11. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    12. Sandra Ludwig & Julia Nafziger, 2011. "Beliefs about overconfidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 475-500, April.
    13. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    14. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    15. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    16. Church, Bryan K. & Kuang, Xi (Jason) & Liu, Yuebing (Sarah), 2019. "The effects of measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-84.
    17. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    18. Arno Riedl & Paul Smeets, 2017. "Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(6), pages 2505-2550, December.
    19. He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 691-693.
    20. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    calibration of academic performance; monetary incentives; feedback; prediction; post-diction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:jau:wpaper:2024/01. 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: María Aurora Garcia Gallego (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ueujies.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.