IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/335576.html

Testing a Fine is a Price in the Lab

Author

Listed:
  • Kornhauser, Lewis
  • Lu, Yijia
  • Tontrup, Stephan

Abstract

Recent research in experimental law and economics shows that the imposition of a fine, intended to deter some harmful behavior, may crowd out moral motivation: the behavior occurs more frequently even though a payment is charged to discourage it. In A Fine is a Price, Gneezy and Rustichini (2000) suggest that the payment may induce subjects to frame the intended prohibition as a permission in exchange for a price. Obviously, the effect if confirmed may impact almost any form of public regulation or contract drafting. May fines charged for plastic bags in fact increase usage? May penalty clauses in contracts increase the likelihood of breach? Our study tests this theory, distinguishing it from six alternative crowding-out mechanisms and from confounds in Gneezy and Rustichini's original day-care study. In our experiment, subjects are offered a contract to perform a real effort task. Subjects are paid upon the acceptance of the contract. If they breach the contract, they keep their payment, but burden their partner with an additional workload. We vary our treatments by specifying different amounts that subject need to pay if they do not perform: T1 specifies no payment, T2 stipulates a low fine disproportional to the extra workload imposed, and T3 stipulates a proportional fine; the payments go to the contractual partner. We find the same mean performance level across all three treatments. However, splitting the sample according to the subjects' social value orientation reveals a strong crowding-out effect in the pro-social group and an offsetting price effect for the pro-self players. Our last treatment, T4, aims to identify the mechanism behind this crowding out effect. In this treatment, the payment is made to the experimenter, instead of the contractual partner as under T2 and T3. In the absence of a transfer between the parties, T4 forces subjects to view the fine as a penalty, instead of an exchange. Results show that T4 crowds in the pro-social subjects' compliance, providing causal evidence for the Fine-is-a-Price hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kornhauser, Lewis & Lu, Yijia & Tontrup, Stephan, 2019. "Testing a Fine is a Price in the Lab," EconStor Preprints 335576, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:335576
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3477534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/335576/1/fine-is-a-price-SSRN.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.3477534?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. Galbiati, Roberto & Schlag, Karl H. & van der Weele, Joël J., 2013. "Sanctions that signal: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 34-51.
    2. Armin Falk & Michael Kosfeld, "undated". "Distrust - The Hidden Cost of Control," IEW - Working Papers 193, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Ernst Fehr & John A. List, 2004. "The Hidden Costs and Returns of Incentives-Trust and Trustworthiness Among CEOs," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(5), pages 743-771, September.
    4. Haesevoets, Tessa & Van Hiel, Alain & Reinders Folmer, Chris & De Cremer, David, 2014. "What money can’t buy: The psychology of financial overcompensation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 83-95.
    5. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09o0ks2e12i is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Galbiati, Roberto & Schlag, Karl H. & van der Weele, Joël J., 2013. "Sanctions that signal: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 34-51.
    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. Galbiati, Roberto & Vertova, Pietro, 2014. "How laws affect behavior: Obligations, incentives and cooperative behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-57.
    2. Kornhauser, Lewis & Lu, Yijia & Tontrup, Stephan, 2020. "Testing a fine is a price in the lab," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Irlenbusch, Bernd & Sliwka, Dirk, 2005. "Incentives, Decision Frames, and Motivation Crowding Out – An Experimental Investigation," IZA Discussion Papers 1758, IZA Network @ LISER.
    4. Lars P. Feld & Bruno S. Frey & Benno Torgler, 2006. "Rewarding Honest Taxpayers? Evidence on the Impact of Rewards from Field Experiments," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-16, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    5. Sophie Harnay & Élisabeth Tovar, 2017. "Obeying vs. resisting unfair laws. A structural analysis of the internalization of collective preferences on redistribution using classification trees and random forests," Working Papers hal-04141635, HAL.
    6. Nosenzo, Daniele & Xiao, Erte & Xue, Nina, 2024. "The motive matters: Experimental evidence on the expressive function of punishment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 44-67.
    7. Ichino, Andrea & Muehlheusser, Gerd, 2008. "How often should you open the door?: Optimal monitoring to screen heterogeneous agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 820-831, September.
    8. Daniele Nosenzo & Erte Xiao & Nina Xue, 2022. "Norm-Signalling Punishment," Economics Working Papers 2022-07, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    9. Anastasia Danilov & Dirk Sliwka, 2017. "Can Contracts Signal Social Norms? Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 459-476, February.
    10. Hoeft, Leonard & Kurschilgen, Michael & Mill, Wladislaw, 2025. "Norms as obligations," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Friedel Bolle & Jessica Kaehler, 2006. "Coleman's Hypothesis on trusting behaviour and a remark on meta-studies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 469-483.
    12. Dickinson, David & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2008. "Does monitoring decrease work effort?: The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 56-76, May.
    13. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    14. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    15. Ronald Peeters & Leonard Wolk, 2017. "Eliciting interval beliefs: An experimental study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Christophe Lemiére & Gaute Torsvik & Ottar Mæstad & Christopher H. Herbst & Kenneth L. Leonard, 2013. "Evaluating the Impact of Results-Based Financing on Health Worker Performance: Theory, Tools and Variables to Inform an Impact Evaluation," Health, Nutrition and Population (HNP) Discussion Paper Series 98269, The World Bank.
    17. Arbel, Yuval & Bar-El, Ronen & Schwarz, Mordechai E. & Tobol, Yossef, 2019. "To What Do People Contribute? Ongoing Operations vs. Sustainable Supplies," IZA Discussion Papers 12180, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    19. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    20. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:zbw:esprep:335576. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.