Skip to main content

On the incentive effects of monitoring: evidence from the lab and the field

Abstract

Several experimental studies have shown that the crowding-out effect of monitoring may outweigh its disciplining effect through intrinsic motivation destruction, thereby reducing effort. However, most of these experiments use numeric effort tasks that subjects may not be intrinsically motivated to complete. This paper aims to analyze the incentive effects of monitoring using a real-effort task for which intrinsic motivation is more likely to exist. We conducted two similar experiments, in the lab in Montreal and in the field in Ouagadougou. In contrast to the lab, subjects in the field are unaware they are taking part in an experiment.

The following results are observed both in the lab and in the field. Relative to the baseline treatment, we find that our two monitoring treatments significantly increase effort, in line with agency theory. However, effort levels are not significantly different between the monitoring treatments. Finally, increasing the subjects’ wage is found to have no effect on effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armantier, O., & Boly, A. (2008). Can corruption be studied in the lab? Comparing a field and a lab experiment. CIRANO Working Papers, s2008-26.

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfgaauw, J., & Dur, R. (2008). Incentives and Workers’ motivation in the public sector. Economic Journal, 118, 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. L. (2001). The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Experimental Economics, 4(1), 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. L., & Villeval, M. C. (2008). Does monitoring decrease work effort? The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories. Games and Economic Behavior, 63, 56–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dur, R. (2009). Gift exchange in the workplace: money or attention? Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 550–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). Distrust - the hidden cost of control. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1611–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 687–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Do incentive contracts crowd out voluntary cooperation? Working paper No. 34, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.

  • Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2003). Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature, 422, 137–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2007). Adding a stick to the carrot? The interaction of bonuses and fines. American Economic Review, 97, 177–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (1993). Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry with trust and loyalty. Economic Inquiry, 31, 663–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87, 746–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gächter, S., & Falk, A. (2002). Work motivation, institutions, and performance. In R. Zwick & A. Rapoport (Eds.), Experimental business research (pp. 351–372). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2006). Putting behavioral economics to work: testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica, 74(5), 1365–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies, 19, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Schmidt, H., Rockenbach, B., & Sadrieh, A. (2010). In search of workers’ real effort reciprocity - a field and a laboratory experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 817–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kube, S., Marechal, M. A., & Puppe, C. (2008). The currency of reciprocity: gift-exchange in the workplace. Working Paper Series, Nr. 377, Universtiy of Zürich.

  • Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences tell us about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1999). Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioral economics. Economic Journal, 109(453), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Rebitzer, J. B., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. J. (2002). Monitoring, motivation, and management: the determinants of opportunistic behavior in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 92(4), 850–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, G. G., & Frank, B. (2003). Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Economics of Governance, 4, 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72, 923–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (1999). Experimental economics: hard science or wasteful tinkering? Economic Journal, 109(453), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amadou Boly.

Additional information

I am indebted to the editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. I would like to thank Jim Engle-Warwick, Gérard Gaudet, Julie Héroux, Abraham Hollander, Claude Montmarquette, and participants at the ESA 2008 European Meeting in Lyon. I am particularly indebted to Olivier Armantier. All remaining errors are mine. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

On the Incentive Effects of Monitoring: Evidence from the Lab and the Field. (pdf 39.3 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boly, A. On the incentive effects of monitoring: evidence from the lab and the field. Exp Econ 14, 241–253 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9265-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9265-1

Keywords

  • Experimental economics
  • Monitoring
  • Crowding-out effect

JEL Classification

  • C9
  • J2
  • M5