IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mhr/jinste/urnsici0932-4569(201203)1681_62fcwlfi_2.0.tx_2-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing Contracts: Why Loss Framing Increases Effort

Author

Listed:
  • Richard R. W. Brooks
  • Alexander Stremitzer
  • Stephan Tontrup

Abstract

Recent evidence from the field (Hossain and List, 2009) suggests that contracts framed in terms of a loss (a deduction is taken for failing to meet a threshold) lead to greater effort than contracts framed in terms of a gain (a bonus is given for meeting a threshold). We investigate two explanations for this framing effect in a laboratory setting. First, we find that the loss frame communicates the expectation that achieving the bonus is the default and that our subjects comply with this expectation. Second, we find evidence for an endowment effect, even though the bonus is just a monetary payment that subjects do not even have in their possession.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard R. W. Brooks & Alexander Stremitzer & Stephan Tontrup, 2012. "Framing Contracts: Why Loss Framing Increases Effort," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(1), pages 62-82, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(201203)168:1_62:fcwlfi_2.0.tx_2-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/framing-contracts-why-loss-framing-increases-effort-101628093245612799440032
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access is included for subscribers to the printed version.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eszter Czibor & Danny Hsu & David Jimenez-Gomez & Susanne Neckermann & Burcu Subasi, 2022. "Loss-Framed Incentives and Employee (Mis-)Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7518-7537, October.
    2. Richard R. W. Brooks & Alexander Stremitzer & Stephan Tontrup, 2017. "Stretch It but Don't Break It: The Hidden Cost of Contract Framing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 399-426.
    3. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    4. Lamar Pierce & Alex Rees-Jones & Charlotte Blank, 2020. "The Negative Consequences of Loss-Framed Performance Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26619, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Astrid Gamba & Luca Stanca, 2023. "Mis-judging merit: the effects of adjudication errors in contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 550-587, July.
    6. Gary Charness & Celia Blanco-Jimenez & Lara Ezquerra & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2019. "Cheating, incentives, and money manipulation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 155-177, March.
    7. Lance Xu, 2024. "Advanced age predicts increased susceptibility to attribute, goal, and risky-choice framing in negative frame valences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Leon Zolotoy & Don O’Sullivan & Geoffrey P. Martin, 2022. "Behavioural Agency and Firm Productivity: Revisiting the Incentive Alignment Qualities of Stock Options," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(7), pages 1756-1787, November.
    9. Jonathan Quidt & Francesco Fallucchi & Felix Kölle & Daniele Nosenzo & Simone Quercia, 2017. "Bonus versus penalty: How robust are the effects of contract framing?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 174-182, December.
    10. Paul J. Ferraro & J. Dustin Tracy, 2022. "A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: a meta-analysis and a real-effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1441-1466, November.
    11. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Pupo, Valeria, 2020. "Selection and Incentives under Time Pressure: The Importance of Framing," IZA Discussion Papers 13474, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Stephan Tontrup & Christopher Jon Sprigman, 2022. "Self‐nudging contracts and the positive effects of autonomy—Analyzing the prospect of behavioral self‐management," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 594-676, September.
    13. Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Claudia Souček, 2020. "Performance Pay in Hospitals: An Experiment on Bonus–Malus Incentives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-29, November.
    14. Essl, Andrea & Jaussi, Stefanie, 2017. "Choking under time pressure: The influence of deadline-dependent bonus and malus incentive schemes on performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 127-137.
    15. Christoph Engel & Urs Schweizer, 2012. "Testing Contracts 29th International Seminar on the New Institutional Economics June 15-18, 2011, Krakow, Poland," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(1), pages 1-4, March.
    16. K. Hilken & S. Rosenkranz & K.J.M. De Jaegher & M. Jegers, 2013. "Reference Points, Performance and Ability: A Real Effort Experiment on Framed Incentive Schemes," Working Papers 13-15, Utrecht School of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • J41 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Labor Contracts

    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:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(201203)168:1_62:fcwlfi_2.0.tx_2-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Wolpert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/jite .

    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.