The Algorithmic Assignment of Incentive Schemes

References

• Allcott H, Kessler JB (2019) The welfare effects of nudges: A case study of energy use social comparisons. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 11(1):236–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersson O, Holm HJ, Tyran J-R, Wengström E (2016) Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. Management Sci. 62(1):29–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Callen M, Khan MY, Hussain K, Sprenger C (2022) Using preference estimates to customize incentives: An application to polio vaccination drives in Pakistan. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 21(4):1428–1477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armantier O, Boly A (2015) Framing of incentives and effort provision. Internat. Econom. Rev. 56(3):917–938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashraf N, Bandiera O, Jack BK (2014) No margin, no mission? A field experiment on incentives for public service delivery. J. Public Econom. 120:1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2016) Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(27):7353–7360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2017) The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2):3–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2019) Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annual Rev. Econom. 11(1):685–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azucar D, Marengo D, Settanni M (2018) Predicting the big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis. Personality Individual Differences 124:150–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2005) Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data. Quart. J. Econom. 120(3):917–962.Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2007) Incentives for managers and inequality among workers: Evidence from a firm-level experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 122(2):729–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2011) Field experiments with firms. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(3):63–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Lee S-Y, Potter G, Srinivasan D (2000) An empirical analysis of continuing improvements following the implementation of a performance-based compensation plan. J. Accounting Econom. 30(3):315–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barankay I (2012) Rank incentives: Evidence from a randomized workplace experiment. Accessed March 1, 2022, https://repository.upenn.edu/bepp_papers/75.Google Scholar
• Battocchi K, Dillon E, Hei M, Lewis G, Oka P, Oprescu M, Syrgkanis V (2019) EconML: A Python package for ML-Based heterogeneous treatment effects estimation. https://github.com/microsoft/EconML.Google Scholar
• Becker-Peth M, Katok E, Thonemann UW (2013) Designing buyback contracts for irrational but predictable newsvendors. Management Sci. 59(8):1800–1816.Link, Google Scholar
• Benet-Martínez V, John OP (1998) Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(3):729–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Björkegren D, Blumenstock JE, Knight S (2020) Manipulation-proof machine learning. Preprint, submitted April 8, https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03865.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
• Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Machine Learn. 45(1):5–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breza E, Kaur S, Shamdasani Y (2018) The morale effects of pay inequality. Quart. J. Econom. 133(2):611–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butschek S, Amor RG, Kampkötter P, Sliwka D (2021) Motivating gig workers—Evidence from a field experiment. Labour Econom. 75:102105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cadsby CB, Song F, Tapon F (2007) Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Acad. Management J. 50(2):387–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caria AS, Gordon G, Kasy M, Quinn S, Shami SO, Teytelboym A (2024) An adaptive targeted field experiment: Job search assistance for refugees in Jordan. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 22(2):781–836.Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Gong E (2016) Motivating agents: How much does the mission matter? J. Labor Econom. 34(1):211–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casas-Arce P, Martinez-Jerez FA (2009) Relative performance compensation, contests, and dynamic incentives. Management Sci. 55(8):1306–1320.Link, Google Scholar
• Chapman J, Dean M, Ortoleva P, Snowberg E, Camerer C (2017) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept are probably less correlated than you think. NBER Working Paper No. 23954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Chen DL, Schonger M, Wickens C (2016) oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. J. Behav. Experiment. Finance 9:88–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Fernández-Val I, Melly B (2013) Inference on counterfactual distributions. Econometrica 81(6):2205–2268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Demirer M, Duflo E, Fernández-Val I (2018a) Generic machine learning inference on heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments, with an application to immunization in India. NBER Working Paper No. 24678, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, Duflo E, Hansen C, Newey W, Robins J (2018b) Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econom. J. 21(1):C1–C68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Czibor E, Hsu D, Jimenez-Gomez D, Neckermann S, Subasi B (2022) Loss-framed incentives and employee (mis-)behavior. Management Sci. 68(10):7518–7537.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis JM, Heller SB (2020) Rethinking the benefits of youth employment programs: The heterogeneous effects of summer jobs. Rev. Econom. Statist. 102(4):664–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Quidt J (2018) Your loss is my gain: A recruitment experiment with framed incentives. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 16(2):522–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Quidt J, Fallucchi F, Kölle F, Nosenzo D, Quercia S (2017) Bonus vs. penalty: How robust are the effects of contract framing? J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 3(2):174–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delfgaauw J, Dur R, Sol J, Verbeke W (2013) Tournament incentives in the field: Gender differences in the workplace. J. Labor Econom. 31(2):305–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Pope D (2018) What motivates effort? Evidence and expert forecasts. Rev. Econom. Stud. 85(2):1029–1069.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U, Rao G (2022) Estimating social preferences and gift exchange at work. Amer. Econom. Rev. 112(3):1038–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A (2011) Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):556–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donato K, Miller G, Mohanan M, Truskinovsky Y, Vera-Hernández M (2017) Personality traits and performance contracts: Evidence from a field experiment among maternity care providers in India. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(5):506–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drouvelis M, Rigdon ML (2022) Gender differences in competitiveness: The role of social incentives. Working Paper No. 9518, CESifo, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P, Misra S (2023) Personalized pricing and consumer welfare. J. Political Econom. 131(1):131–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Leider S (2020) Managerial payoff and gift-exchange in the field. Rev. Indust. Organ. 56(2):259–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eyring H, Narayanan VG (2018) Performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison. J. Accounting Res. 56(2):581–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Becker A, Dohmen TJ, Huffman D, Sunde U (2022) The preference survey module: A validated instrument for measuring risk, time, and social preferences. Management Sci. 69(4):1935–1950.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Becker A, Dohmen T, Enke B, Huffman D, Sunde U (2018) Global evidence on economic preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 133(4):1645–1692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fallucchi F, Nosenzo D, Reuben E (2020) Measuring preferences for competition with experimentally-validated survey questions. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 178:402–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell AM, Grenier JH, Leiby J (2017) Scoundrels or stars? Theory and evidence on the quality of workers in online labor markets. Accounting Rev. 92(1):93–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell MH, Liang T, Misra S (2021a) Deep learning for individual heterogeneity: An automatic inference framework. Preprint, submitted July 23, https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14694.Google Scholar
• Farrell MH, Liang T, Misra S (2021b) Deep neural networks for estimation and inference. Econometrica 89(1):181–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferraro PJ, Tracy JD (2022) A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: A meta-analysis and a real-effort experiment. Experiment. Econom. 25:1441–1466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foster JC, Taylor JMG, Ruberg SJ (2011) Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Statist. Medicine 30(24):2867–2880.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friebel G, Heinz M, Krueger M, Zubanov N (2017) Team incentives and performance: Evidence from a retail chain. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(8):2168–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fryer RG, Levitt SD, List J, Sadoff S (2022) Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through framing: A field experiment. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 14(4):269–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Johnson EJ, Herrmann A (2022) Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Theory Decision 92:599–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons FX, Buunk BP (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 76(1):129–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godinho de Matos M, Ferreira P, Smith MD (2018) The effect of subscription video-on-demand on piracy: Evidence from a household-level randomized experiment. Management Sci. 64(12):5610–5630.Link, Google Scholar
• Gosnell GK, List JA, Metcalfe RD (2020) The impact of management practices on employee productivity: A field experiment with airline captains. J. Political Econom. 128(4):1195–1233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grolleau G, Kocher MG, Sutan A (2016) Cheating and loss aversion: Do people cheat more to avoid a loss? Management Sci. 62(12):3428–3438.Link, Google Scholar
• Grund C, Sliwka D (2005) Envy and compassion in tournaments. J. Econom. Management Strategy 14(1):187–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan RL, Hoffman VB, Moser DV (2005) Bonus vs. penalty: Does contract frame affect employee effort? Rapoport A, Zwick R, eds. Experimental Business Research (Springer US, Boston), 151–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, vol. 2 (Springer, Cham, Switzerland).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirano K, Porter JR (2009) Asymptotics for statistical treatment rules. Econometrica 77(5):1683–1701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Misra S, Zhang WW (2024) Heterogeneous treatment effects and optimal targeting policy evaluation. Quant. Mark Econom. 22:115–168.Google Scholar
• Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ (2011) The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):399–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hossain T, List JA (2012) The behavioralist visits the factory: Increasing productivity using simple framing manipulations. Management Sci. 58(12):2151–2167.Link, Google Scholar
• Imai K, Ratkovic M (2013) Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. Ann. Appl. Statist. 7(1):443–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A (2014) Working for the “warm glow”: On the benefits and limits of prosocial incentives. J. Public Econom. 114:14–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A, Sadoff S, Samek A (2017) Do people anticipate loss aversion? Management Sci. 63(5):1271–1284.Link, Google Scholar
• John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (1991) Big five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
• John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ (2008) Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, eds. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (The Guilford Press, New York), 114–158.Google Scholar
• Katz LF, Krueger AB (2019) The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the united states, 1995–2015. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 72(2):382–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitagawa T, Tetenov A (2018) Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice. Econometrica 86(2):591–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S, Obermeyer Z (2015) Prediction policy problems. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):491–495.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Lakkaraju H, Leskovec J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S (2017) Human decisions and machine predictions. Quart. J. Econom. 133(1):237–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larkin I, Leider S (2012) Incentive schemes, sorting, and behavioral biases of employees: Experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 4(2):184–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (2000) Performance pay and productivity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(5):1346–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (2018) Compensation and incentives in the workplace. J. Econom. Perspect. 32(3):195–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA, Neckermann S, Sadoff S (2016) The behavioralist goes to school: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve educational performance. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 8(4):183–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lourenço SM (2020) Do self-reported motivators really motivate higher performance? Management Accounting Res. 47:100676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manthei K, Sliwka D, Vogelsang T (2021) Performance pay and prior learning-evidence from a retail chain. Management Sci. 67(11):6998–7022.Link, Google Scholar
• Manthei K, Sliwka D, Vogelsang T (2023) Information provision, incentives, and attention: A field experiment on facilitating and influencing managers’ decisions. Accounting Rev. 98(5):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreno-Torres JG, Raeder T, Alaiz-Rodríguez R, Chawla NV, Herrera F (2012) A unifying view on data set shift in classification. Pattern Recognition 45(1):521–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3):1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ovadia Y, Fertig E, Ren J, Nado Z, Sculley D, Nowozin S, Dillon J, Lakshminarayanan B, Snoek J (2019) Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? Evaluating predictive uncertainty under data set shift. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 32:1254.Google Scholar
• Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, et al. (2011) Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Machine Learn. Res. 12:2825–2830.Google Scholar
• Quinonero-Candela J, Sugiyama M, Schwaighofer A, Lawrence ND (2008) Data Set Shift in Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rambachan A, Kleinberg J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S (2020) An economic perspective on algorithmic fairness. AEA Papers Proc. 110:91–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rammstedt B, John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. J. Res. Personality 41(1):203–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rau HA (2014) The disposition effect and loss aversion: Do gender differences matter? Econom. Lett. 123(1):33–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skaperdas S, Gan L (1995) Risk aversion in contests. Econom. J. 105(431):951–962.Google Scholar
• Snowberg E, Yariv L (2021) Testing the waters: Behavior across participant pools. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(2):687–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprinkle GB, Williamson MG (2006) Experimental research in managerial accounting. Handbooks Management Accounting Res. 1:415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Ungemach C, Harris AJ, Bartels DM, Newell BR, Paolacci G, Chandler J (2015) The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgment Decision Making 10(5):479–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tonin M, Vlassopoulos M (2010) Disentangling the sources of pro-socially motivated effort: A field experiment. J. Public Econom. 94(11–12):1086–1092.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tonin M, Vlassopoulos M (2015) Corporate philanthropy and productivity: Evidence from an online real effort experiment. Management Sci. 61(8):1795–1811.Link, Google Scholar
• Van der Stede WA, Wu A, Wu SY-C (2020) An empirical analysis of employee responses to bonuses and penalties. Accounting Rev. 95(6):395–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wager S, Athey S (2018) Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(523):1228–1242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Youyou W, Kosinski M, Stillwell D (2015) Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(4):1036–1040.Crossref, Google Scholar