Gift Exchange in the Workplace: Addressing the Conflicting Evidence with a Careful Test

References

• Akerlof G (1982) Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 97(4):543–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof G, Yellen J (1990) The fair-wage hypothesis and unemployment. Quart. J. Econom. 105(2):255–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker G (1992) Incentive contracts and performance measurement. J. Political Econom. 100(3):598–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baran N, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2010) Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the trust game. NBER Working Paper 15654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Shearer B (2009) Gift giving and worker productivity: Evidence from a firm-level experiment. Games Econom. Behav. 67(1):233–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin DJ (2015a) A theory of fairness in labour markets. Japanese Econom. Rev. 66(2):182–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin DJ (2015b) Distributional preferences, reciprocity-like behavior, and efficiency in bilateral exchange. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconomics 7(1):70–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benz M, Meier S (2008) Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):268–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bewley TF (1999) Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonferroni C (1935) Il Calculo della Assicurazioni su Gruppi di Teste. Tipografia del Senato.Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2011) The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):375–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown M, Falk A, Fehr E (2004) Relational contracts and the nature of market interactions. Econometrica 72(3):747–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burks S, Carpenter J, Goette L (2009) Performance pay and worker cooperation: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 70(3):458–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, Munafò MR (2013) Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 14(5):365–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Seki E (2010) Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from fishermen in Toyama Bay. Econom. Inquiry 49(2):612–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G (2004) Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J. Labor Econom. 22(3):665–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark K, Sefton M (2001) The sequential Prisoner’s dilemma: Evidence on reciprocation. Econom. J. 111(468):51–68.Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Fehr E, Goette L (2015) Fair wages and effort provision: Combining evidence from a choice experiment and a field experiment. Management Sci. 61(8):1777–1794.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Fehr E, Herrmann B, Schneider F (2014) Social comparison and effort provision: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(4):877–898.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List J, Malmendier U, Rao G (2016) Estimating social preferences and gift exchange at work. NBER Working Paper 22043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Ree J, Muralidharal K, Pradhan M, Rogers H (2017) Double for nothing? Experimental evidence on the impact of an unconditional teacher salary increase on student performance in Indonesia. Working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Kolaska T, Leider S (2016) Reciprocity in organizations: Evidence from the UK. CESifo Econom. Stud. 62(3):522–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Esteves-Sorenson C, Pohl V, Freitas E (2015) Wage premiums, shirking deterrence, gift exchange, and employee quality: Firm evidence. Working paper, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2002) Why social preferences matter-the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Econom. J. 112(478):C1–C33.Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2004) Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution Human Behav. 25(2):63–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1993) Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quart. J. Econom. 108(2):437–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1998a) Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets. Eur. Econom. Rev. 42(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchler E, Weichbold A, Gächter S (1998b) When social norms overpower competition: Gift exchange in experimental labor markets. J. Labor Econom. 16(2):324–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Falk A (2002) Reputation and reciprocity: Consequences for the labour relation. Scandinavian J. Econom. 104(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R (2005) Incentives between firms (and within). Management Sci. 51(1):2–17.Link, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R, Waldman M (1999) Careers in organizations: Theory and evidence. Ashenfelter OC, Card, D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3B, Chap. 36 (North-Holland, Amsterdam),2373–2437.Google Scholar
• Gilchrist D, Luca M, Malhotra D (2016) When 3+1 > 4: Gift structure and reciprocity in the field. Management Sci. 62(9):2639–2650.Link, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List J (2006) Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica 74(5):1365–1384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quart. J. Econom. 115(3):791–810.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennig-Schmidt H, Sadrieh A, Rockenbach B (2010) In search of workers’ real effort reciprocity—A field and a laboratory field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 8(4):817–837.Google Scholar
• Hoffman M, Lyons E (2015) Do higher salaries lead to higher performance? Evidence from state politicians. Working Paper 2345085, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
• Holmström B, Milgrom P (1991) Multitask principal–agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law Econom. Organ. 7(2):24–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D (2005) Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(5):1688–1699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz L (1986) Efficiency wage theories: A partial evaluation. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1:235–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kube S, Maréchal M, Puppe C (2012) The currency of reciprocity: Gift exchange in the workplace. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(4):1644–1662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kube S, Maréchal M, Puppe C (2013) Do wage cuts damage work morale? Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(4):853–870.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (2000) Performance pay and productivity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(5):1346–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt S, List J (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List J, Shaikh A, Xu Y (2016) Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics. NBER Working Paper 21875, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mas A, Moretti E (2009) Peers at work. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):112–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneider F, Weber R (2012) Long term commitment and cooperation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
• Shapiro C, Stiglitz J (1984) Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. Amer. Econom. Rev. 74(3):433–444.Google Scholar
• Weiss A (1980) Job queues and layoffs in labor markets with flexible wages. J. Political Econom. 88(3):526–538.Crossref, Google Scholar