Review of Economic Studies · 2017 · Stefano DellaVigna、Devin G. Pope
中文摘要
不同的货币与非货币激励能在多大程度上诱发有成本的努力？其有效性是否与研究者的预期及文献中的结果相一致？我们实施了一项包含十八个处理组的大规模真实努力实验。我们考察了以下效应：(1) 标准激励；(2) 行为因素，如社会偏好与参照依赖；以及 (3) 来自心理学的非货币诱导。我们发现：(1) 货币激励大体按预期发挥作用，包括极低的计件工资处理组并未挤出努力；(2) 证据部分符合标准行为模型，包括温情效应，尽管我们未发现概率加权的证据；(3) 心理激励是有效的，但不如货币激励有效。随后，我们将结果与 208 位学术专家的预测进行比较。平均而言，专家预期到了若干关键特征，如心理激励的有效性。然而，相当一部分专家反事实地预期了挤出效应、概率加权和纯利他主义。作为进一步比较，我们呈现了对文献中类似处理组的元分析。总体而言，基于文献的预测与专家预测相关，但表现逊于专家预测。
Abstract
How much do different monetary and non-monetary motivators induce costly effort? Does the effectiveness line up with the expectations of researchers and with results in the literature? We conduct a large-scale real-effort experiment with eighteen treatment arms. We examine the effect of (1) standard incentives; (2) behavioural factors like social preferences and reference dependence; and (3) non-monetary inducements from psychology. We find that (1) monetary incentives work largely as expected, including a very low piece rate treatment which does not crowd out effort; (2) the evidence is partly consistent with standard behavioural models, including warm glow, though we do not find evidence of probability weighting; (3) the psychological motivators are effective, but less so than incentives. We then compare the results to forecasts by 208 academic experts. On average, the experts anticipate several key features, like the effectiveness of psychological motivators. A sizeable share of experts, however, expects crowd-out, probability weighting, and pure altruism, counterfactually. As a further comparison, we present a meta-analysis of similar treatments in the literature. Overall, predictions based on the literature are correlated with, but underperform, the expert forecasts.