What You Don’t Know…Can’t Hurt You? A Natural Field Experiment on Relative Performance Feedback in Higher Education

References

• Albornoz F, Cabrales A, Hauk E (2017) Occupational choice with endogenous spillovers. Working Paper 972, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
• Al-Ubaydli O, List J (2015) Do natural field experiments afford researchers more or less control than laboratory experiments? Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):462–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azmat G, Iriberri N (2010) The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. J. Public Econom. 94(7/8):435–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azmat G, Iriberri N (2016) The provision of relative performance feedback: An analysis of performance and satisfaction. J. Econom. Management Strategy 25(1):77–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Larcinese V, Rasul I (2015) Blissful ignorance? A natural experiment on the effect of feedback on students’ performance. Labour Econom. 34:13–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barankay I (2012) Rank incentives: Evidence from a randomized workplace experiment. Working paper, Mack Institute for Innovation Management, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Benabou R (1993) Workings of a city: Location, education, and production. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):619–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader S, Madras Gartenberg C, Prat A (2015) The contingent effect of management practices. Research Paper No. 15–48, Columbia Business School, New York.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanes i Vidal J, Nossol M (2011) Tournaments without prizes: Evidence from personnel records. Management Sci. 57(10):1721–1736.Link, Google Scholar
• Calvò-Armengol A, Patacchini E, Zenou Y (2009) Peer effects and social networks in education. Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(4):1239–1267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Leahy J (2001) Psychological expected utility theory and anticipatory feelings. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):55–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Celik Katreniak D (2018) Information, aspirations and incentive to learn: A randomized field experiment in Uganda. Working paper, Higher School of Economics, Moscow.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Masclet D, Villeval MC (2013) The sark side of competition for status. Management Sci. 60(1):38–55.Link, Google Scholar
• Diamond DW (1985) Optimal release of information by firms. J. Finance 40(4):1071–1094.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duflo E, Saez E (2003) The role of information and social nteractions in etirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):815–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eil D, Rao JM (2011) The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconom. 3(2):114–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eriksson T, Poulsen A, Villeval MC (2009) Feedback and incentives: Experimental evidence. Labour Econom. 16(6):679–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertac S (2005) Social comparisons and optimal information revelation: Theory and experiments. Working paper, Koç University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
• Ertac S (2011) Does self-relevance affect information processing? Experimental evidence on the response to performance and non-performance feedback. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 80(3):532–545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerhards L, Siemery N (2014) Private versus public feedback: The incentive effects of symbolic awards. Working paper, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
• Gill D, Kissova Z, Lee J, Prowse V (2016) First-place loving and last-place loathing: How rank in the distribution of performance affects effort provision. Working Paper 783, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
• Hannan RL, Krishnan R, Newman AH (2008) The effects of disseminating relative performance feedback in tournament versus individual performance compensation plans. Accounting Rev. 83(4):893–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khunen CN, Agnieszka T (2012) Feedback, self-esteem, and performance in organizations. Management Sci. 58(1):94–113.Link, Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mas A, Moretti E (2009) Peers at work. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):112–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mobius M, Niederle M, Niehaus P, Rosenblat T (2011) Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 17014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Cain DM (2007) Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 103(2):197–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murad Z, Sefton M, Starmer C (2016) How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence? J. Risk Uncertainty 52(1):21–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schotter A, Trevino I (2014) Belief elicitation in the laboratory. Annual Rev. Econom. 6(1):103–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tran A, Zeckhauser R (2012) Rank as an inherent incentive: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Public Econom. 96(9/10):645–650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams J, Kane D (2009) Assessment and feedback: Institutional experiences of student feedback, 1996 to 2007. Higher Ed. Quart. 63(3):264–286.Crossref, Google Scholar