IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/86732.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Eyring, Henry
  • Narayanan, V.G.

Abstract

We conduct a field experiment, based on a registered report accepted by the Journal of Accounting Research, to test performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison. Relative to providing the median as a reference point for online students to compare themselves to, providing the top quartile: damps performance for those below the median; boosts performance for those between the median and top quartile; and, in the case of outcome but not process comparison, boosts performance for those above the top quartile. We do not find that either reference point yields a greater average performance effect. However, providing the more effective reference point in each partition of initial performance yields a 40% greater performance effect than providing either reference point uniformly. Students access the online courses intermittently over the span of a year. Our effects derive from small portions of our treatment groups—5% in the case of process comparison and 26% in the case of outcome comparison—who accessed treatment and who were, on average, more active leading up to and during our intervention

Suggested Citation

  • Eyring, Henry & Narayanan, V.G., 2018. "Performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86732, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:86732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/86732/
    File Function: Open access version.
    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. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    3. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    4. David S. Lyle & John Z. Smith, 2014. "The Effect of High-Performing Mentors on Junior Officer Promotion in the US Army," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(2), pages 229-258.
    5. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    6. Brown, Douglas J. & Ferris, D. Lance & Heller, Daniel & Keeping, Lisa M., 2007. "Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 59-75, January.
    7. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2013. "Team Incentives: Evidence From A Firm Level Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(5), pages 1079-1114, October.
    8. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    9. Yan Chen & F. Maxwell Harper & Joseph Konstan & Sherry Xin Li, 2010. "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1358-1398, September.
    10. Bizjak, John & Lemmon, Michael & Nguyen, Thanh, 2011. "Are all CEOs above average? An empirical analysis of compensation peer groups and pay design," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 538-555, June.
    11. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    12. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mareike Nossol, 2011. "Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1721-1736, October.
    13. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Johannes Berger & Christine Harbring & Dirk Sliwka, 2013. "Performance Appraisals and the Impact of Forced Distribution--An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 54-68, June.
    16. Henry S. Farber, 2008. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Labor Supply: The Case of New York City Taxi Drivers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1069-1082, June.
    17. Pablo Casas-Arce & F. Asís Martínez-Jerez, 2009. "Relative Performance Compensation, Contests, and Dynamic Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1306-1320, August.
    18. Robert Gibbons & John Roberts, 2012. "The Handbook of Organizational Economics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9889.
    19. Bouwens, Jan & Kroos, Peter, 2011. "Target ratcheting and effort reduction," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 171-185, February.
    20. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2014. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3003-3037, October.
    21. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    22. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried, 2005. "Pay Without Performance: Overview of the Issues," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 17(4), pages 8-23, September.
    23. Leone, Andrew J. & Rock, Steve, 2002. "Empirical tests of budget ratcheting and its effect on managers' discretionary accrual choices," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 43-67, February.
    24. Bandiera, Oriana & Barankay, Iwan & Rasul, Imran, 2013. "Team incentives: evidence from a firm level," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 53141, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    25. Xu Lin, 2010. "Identifying Peer Effects in Student Academic Achievement by Spatial Autoregressive Models with Group Unobservables," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 825-860, October.
    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. Kathrin Manthei & Dirk Sliwka & Timo Vogelsang, 2023. "Talking About Performance or Paying for It? A Field Experiment on Performance Reviews and Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2198-2216, April.
    2. Labro, Eva & Lang, Mark & Omartian, James D., 2023. "Predictive analytics and centralization of authority," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    3. Henry Eyring & Patrick J. Ferguson & Sebastian Koppers, 2021. "Less Information, More Comparison, and Better Performance: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 657-711, May.
    4. Robert Bloomfield & Kristina Rennekamp & Blake Steenhoven, 2018. "No System Is Perfect: Understanding How Registration‐Based Editorial Processes Affect Reproducibility and Investment in Research Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 313-362, May.
    5. Saskia Opitz & Dirk Sliwka & Timo Vogelsang & Tom Zimmermann, 2022. "The Targeted Assignment of Incentive Schemes," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 187, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Buechel, Berno & Mechtenberg, Lydia & Petersen, Julia, 2018. "If I can do it, so can you! Peer effects on perseverance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 301-314.
    7. Amrou Awaysheh & Rocio Bonet & Jaime Ortega, 2023. "Performance feedback and productivity: Evidence from a field experiment," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 98-115, January.
    8. Eva Labro & Mark Lang & Jim Omartian, 2019. "Predictive Analytics and Organizational Architecture: Plant-Level Evidence from Census Data," Working Papers 19-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    9. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.

    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. Henry Eyring & V. G. Narayanan, 2018. "Performance Effects of Setting a High Reference Point for Peer‐Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 581-615, May.
    2. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2018. "Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication," MPRA Paper 88830, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2022. "Relative performance feedback and the effects of being above average — field experiment and replication," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Verbeke, Willem, 2014. "Dynamic incentive effects of relative performance pay: A field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Willem Verbeke, 2015. "The Effects of Prize Spread and Noise in Elimination Tournaments: A Natural Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(3), pages 521-569.
    6. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    7. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    8. Brülisauer, Marcel & Goette, Lorenz & Jiang, Zhengyi & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Appliance-specific feedback and social comparisons: Evidence from a field experiment on energy conservation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno, 2021. "Public good provision, in-group cooperation and out-group descriptive norms: A lab experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Pinar Yildirim & Yanhao Wei & Christophe Bulte & Joy Lu, 2020. "Social network design for inducing effort," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 381-417, December.
    11. Amrou Awaysheh & Rocio Bonet & Jaime Ortega, 2023. "Performance feedback and productivity: Evidence from a field experiment," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 98-115, January.
    12. Oliver P. Hauser & Francesca Gino & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "Budging beliefs, nudging behaviour," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 17(1), pages 15-26, November.
    13. López-Pintado, Dunia & Meléndez-Jiménez, Miguel A., 2021. "Far above others," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
      • Dunia López-Pintado & Miguel A. Meléndez-Jiménez, 2018. "Far above others," Working Papers 18.12, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Galiani, Sebastian & Gertler, Paul J. & Undurraga, Raimundo, 2021. "Aspiration adaptation in resource-constrained environments," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Adriaan (A.R.) Soetevent & Gert-Jan Romensen, 2017. "Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior: Field Evidence from Bus Drivers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-073/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Souverijn, Michiel, 2017. "Team Incentives, Task Assignment, and Performance: A Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 11228, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Dur, Robert & Fleming, Dimitry & van Garderen, Marten & van Lent, Max, 2021. "A social norm nudge to save more: A field experiment at a retail bank," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    relative performance information; reference points; performance; social comparison;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:ehl:lserod:86732. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.