IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aah/aarhec/2014-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Private versus Public Feedback - The Incentive Effects of Symbolic Awards

Author

Listed:
  • Leonie Gerhards

    (Department of Economics and Business, Aarhus University, Denmark)

  • Neele Siemer

    (Goethe-University Frankfurt)

Abstract

We experimentally compare the incentive effects of rewarding individuals for outstanding performance publicly versus privately. We implement two real-effort tasks, which differ in how prestigious subjects perceive working on them. In both tasks private and public feedback similarly enhances subjects' performance compared to the control treatment. Also high ability and a positive interim feedback increase performance. Competitive preferences matter only in the less prestigious task. Subjects' gender and overconfidence can in neither of the tasks explain performance. In a supplementary field experiment at a secondary school we furthermore compare the incentive effects of different forms of public recognition.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonie Gerhards & Neele Siemer, 2014. "Private versus Public Feedback - The Incentive Effects of Symbolic Awards," Economics Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    • Handle: RePEc:aah:aarhec:2014-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.econ.au.dk/repec/afn/wp/14/wp14_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore, 2010. "The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 435-452, August.
    2. Xiaofei Sophia Pan & Daniel Houser, 2011. "Competition for Trophies Triggers Male Generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    3. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2010. "Competitive Preferences and Status as an Incentive : Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 1016, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 225-237, November.
    5. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mareike Nossol, 2011. "Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1721-1736, October.
    6. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Joeri Sol & Willem Verbeke, 2013. "Tournament Incentives in the Field: Gender Differences in the Workplace," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 305-326.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2008. "Representative Trust And Reciprocity: Prevalence And Determinants," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(1), pages 84-90, January.
    8. Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti, 2009. "Peers at Work," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 112-145, March.
    9. Gaspart, Frederic & Seki, Erika, 2003. "Cooperation, status seeking and competitive behaviour: theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 51-77, May.
    10. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Kandel, Eugene & Lazear, Edward P, 1992. "Peer Pressure and Partnerships," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(4), pages 801-817, August.
    12. Camelia M. Kuhnen & Agnieszka Tymula, 2012. "Feedback, Self-Esteem, and Performance in Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 94-113, January.
    13. Michael Kosfeld & Susanne Neckermann, 2011. "Getting More Work for Nothing? Symbolic Awards and Worker Performance," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 86-99, August.
    14. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2012. "A Structural Analysis of Disappointment Aversion in a Real Effort Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 469-503, February.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2019. "Measuring costly effort using the slider task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Lise Vesterlund, 2015. "The Effect of Incentives on Real Effort: Evidence from the Slider Task," Working Paper 5661, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    3. Liu, Weihua & Wei, Shuang & Li, Kevin W. & Long, Shangsong, 2022. "Supplier participation in digital transformation of a two-echelon supply chain: Monetary and symbolic incentives," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    5. Ertac, Seda & Koçkesen, Levent & Ozdemir, Duygu, 2016. "The role of verifiability and privacy in the strategic provision of performance feedback: Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-45.
    6. Delavallade,Clara Anne, 2021. "Motivating Teams : Private Feedback and Public Recognition at Work," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9621, The World Bank.
    7. Azmat, Ghazala & Bagues, Manuel & Cabrales, Antonio & Iriberri, Nagore, 2016. "What You Don't Know... Can't Hurt You? A Field Experiment on Relative Performance Feedback in Higher Education," IZA Discussion Papers 9853, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Dorrough, Angela R. & Leszczyńska, Monika & Barreto, Manuela & Glöckner, Andreas, 2016. "Revealing side effects of quota rules on group cooperation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 136-152.
    9. Ertac, Seda & Gümren, Mert & Koçkesen, Levent, 2019. "Strategic feedback in teams: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1-23.
    10. Delavallade, Clara, 2021. "Motivating teams: Private feedback and public recognition at work," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    11. Dobrescu, Isabella & Faravelli, Marco & Megalokonomou, Rigissa & Motta, Alberto, 2019. "Rank Incentives and Social Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial," IZA Discussion Papers 12437, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Ghazala Azmat & Manuel Bagues & Antonio Cabrales & Nagore Iriberri, 2019. "What You Don’t Know…Can’t Hurt You? A Natural Field Experiment on Relative Performance Feedback in Higher Education," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3714-3736, 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. Leonie Gerhards & Neele Siemer, 2016. "The Impact Of Private And Public Feedback On Worker Performance—Evidence From The Lab," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1188-1201, April.
    2. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    3. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Gender and Peer Effects in Social Networks," IZA Discussion Papers 10588, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 207-224.
    5. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status (preprint)," Working Papers halshs-01090241, HAL.
    6. Ghazala Azmat & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "The provision of relative performance feedback information: An experimental analysis of performance and happiness," Economics Working Papers 1216, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. C. Bram Cadsby & Jim Engle-Warnick & Tony Fang & Fei Song, 2014. "Psychological Incentives, Financial Incentives, and Risk Attitudes in Tournaments: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Working Papers 1403, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    8. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    9. Selay Sahan & Euan Phimister, 2022. "Worker Incentives in the Banking Industry," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 259-284, April.
    10. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    12. Julie Beugnot & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Social Networks and Peer Effects at Work," Cahiers de recherche 1320, CIRPEE.
    13. Josse (J.) Delfgaauw & Robert (A.J.) Dur & Michiel Souverijn, 2017. "Team Incentives, Task Assignment, and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-090/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Xiaofei Pan & Daniel Houser, 2017. "Social approval, competition and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 309-332, June.
    15. Ertac, Seda & Gümren, Mert & Koçkesen, Levent, 2019. "Strategic feedback in teams: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1-23.
    16. Michael Kosfeld & Susanne Neckermann & Xiaolan Yang, 2017. "The Effects Of Financial And Recognition Incentives Across Work Contexts: The Role Of Meaning," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 237-247, January.
    17. Guillaume Roels & Xuanming Su, 2014. "Optimal Design of Social Comparison Effects: Setting Reference Groups and Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 606-627, March.
    18. Rosaz, Julie & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2016. "Quitting and peer effects at work," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 55-67.
    19. Georganas, Sotiris & Tonin, Mirco & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2015. "Peer pressure and productivity: The role of observing and being observed," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 223-232.
    20. Nadja Kairies & Miriam Krieger, 2013. "How do Non-Monetary Performance Incentives for Physicians Affect the Quality of Medical Care? – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 0414, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Private feedback; public feedback; relative performance; competitive preferences; laboratory experiment; field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation

    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:aah:aarhec:2014-01. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.au.dk/afn/ .

    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.