IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v123y2014i2p232-235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Luccasen, R. Andrew
  • Thomas, M. Kathleen

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental investigation of a trust game using either cash or class credit as incentives to participants. We recruit from two auditorium classes. In one class, each token has cash value; in the other, each token is worth extra-credit points added to the students’ overall average at the end of the semester. The results indicate that using extra-credit points to motivate participants generates qualitatively similar data on average as participants incentivized with cash. We do find a difference in behavior with second movers who expect a low grade, but those incentivized with class credit are closer to the game theoretic prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:123:y:2014:i:2:p:232-235
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176514000767
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.012?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    2. Philip J. Grossman, 2013. "Holding Fast: The Persistence And Dominance Of Gender Stereotypes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 747-763, January.
    3. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "Assigning Intentions when Actions Are Unobservable: The Impact of Trembling in the Trust Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 307-314, October.
    4. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
    5. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2009. "Incentives for subjects in internet experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 120-122, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    8. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2005. "On the Nature of Reciprocal Motives," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(3), pages 623-635, July.
    9. Catherine C. Eckel & Ragan Petrie, 2011. "Face Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1497-1513, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    12. Vinogradov, Dmitri & Shadrina, Elena, 2013. "Non-monetary incentives in online experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 306-310.
    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. Smith, Alexander, 2015. "On the nature of pessimism in taking and giving games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 50-57.
    2. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    3. Ding, Shuze & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr & Puzzello, Daniela & Tucker, Steven & Williams, Arlington, 2018. "Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 19-27.
    4. Slawomir Kalinowski, 2020. "From expected utility theory to prospect theory: tracking down the experimental path after forty years," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(4), pages 39-56.
    5. Gianluca Vagnani & Francesco Mazzurco, 2022. "Incidental Negative Life Events and the Disposition Effect at the Individual Level," Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 11(2), pages 1-1.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Amalia Rodrigo-González & María Caballer-Tarazona & Aurora García-Gallego, 2019. "Active Learning on Trust and Reciprocity for Undergraduates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.

    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. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    2. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2005. "Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 151-169, November.
    3. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    4. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "Assigning Intentions when Actions Are Unobservable: The Impact of Trembling in the Trust Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 307-314, October.
    5. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 538-553.
    6. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Tjøtta, Sigve & Torsvik, Gaute, 2010. "Testing guilt aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 95-107, January.
    7. James Cox & Klarita Sadiraj & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2008. "Implications of trust, fear, and reciprocity for modeling economic behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Intention-based reciprocity and signaling of intentions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 132-144.
    9. Aidin Hajikhameneh & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2019. "Individualism, collectivism, and trade," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 294-324, June.
    10. Holm, Håkan & Nystedt, Paul, 2005. "Trust in surveys and games - a matter of money and location?," Working Papers 2005:26, Lund University, Department of Economics, revised 15 Aug 2005.
    11. Brülhart, Marius & Usunier, Jean-Claude, 2004. "Verified Trust: Reciprocity, Altruism and Noise in Trust Games," CEPR Discussion Papers 4758, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Vernon L. Smith, 2018. "Adam Smith, scientist and evolutionist: modelling other-regarding behavior without social preferences," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 7-21, April.
    13. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    14. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    15. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    16. 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.
    17. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    18. Johnsen, Åshild A & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "You always meet twice: An experiment on intrinsic versus instrumental reciprocity," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2014/2, University of Stavanger.
    19. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher & Bernhard von Rosenbladt & J�rgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, "undated". "A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys," IEW - Working Papers 141, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Pelligra, Vittorio, 2010. "Trust responsiveness. On the dynamics of fiduciary interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 653-660, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experiment; Trust; Incentives;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:eee:ecolet:v:123:y:2014:i:2:p:232-235. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.