The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 129 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Psychological foundations of incentives
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that economics' narrow self-interest model misses powerful non-pecuniary motives—reciprocity, social approval, and task-specific intrinsic motivation—that interact with material incentives and can make incentives backfire. It reviews experimental and field evidence showing that explicit incentives may reduce voluntary cooperation, while reciprocity and social approval can themselves generate strong incentives.
Key findings
- Explicit incentives can undermine voluntary cooperation: in Fehr and Gächter's gift-exchange experiment, adding a negatively framed fine reduced average effort below the enforceable level of e = 0.4; positively framed bonuses elicited more cooperation than fines but less than no explicit incentive. In Fehr and Rockenbach's trust-game variant, back-transfers as a share of the tripled transfer were 30.3% when the incentive was used, 47.6% when available but not used, and 40.6% when not available.
- Reciprocity can create material incentives: giving employers a reward/punishment opportunity decreased shirking from 83% to 26% of trades, increased exact provision of desired effort from 14% to 36%, increased overprovision from 3% to 38%, raised average effort from e = 0.37 to e = 0.65, and increased aggregate monetary payoff by 40%. In Fehr, Klein and Schmidt's multitask experiment, the bonus contract was chosen in 81% of cases and average effort was almost identical across tasks, fluctuating around e1 = e2 = 6.
- Social approval affects behavior and can interact perversely with fines: Rege and Telle found public-good contributions of 34% of endowment in the anonymous baseline and twice as high when contributions were observable. Gneezy and Rustichini's kindergarten fine roughly doubled late pickups from week 7 onward, and late pickups remained roughly twice the baseline after the fine was removed; in their volunteer-collection experiment, letting children keep 1% of donations reduced the amount collected by 36%, and keeping 10% still reduced it by 8%.
- The psychological literature on crowding out of intrinsic motivation is large—Deci, Koestner and Ryan's meta-study covers 128 experiments—but the paper argues its economic relevance has yet to be established. Deci (1971) found treatment subjects spent 50 seconds less on puzzles in phase 3 than phase 1, while control subjects spent 28 seconds more, but the paper notes alternative explanations such as satiation, disappointment, and signaling.
Methods
- Design: This is a Schumpeter Lecture/review, not a new primary experiment; it synthesizes experimental and field evidence on how reciprocity, social approval, and task-specific intrinsic motivation interact with economic incentives.
- Data or sample: It draws on prior laboratory experiments (gift exchange, public goods, trust games), field experiments (physicians, kindergarten parents, Israeli high-school volunteers), and a meta-analysis of 128 experiments; populations include students, Costa Rican CEOs, and other subject pools.
- Main analysis: Narrative and theoretical synthesis comparing treatment effects across studies, with figures reproduced from cited experiments; no new statistical model or original dataset is reported.
Limitations
- Stated: The arguments about social approval are described as "quite preliminary and speculative," with little known in the area.
- Stated: The case for the economic relevance of crowding out of intrinsic motivation "has yet to be established"; ambiguities remain about disappointment versus crowding out, signaling effects, satiation, efficiency consequences, and interactions with implicit incentives.
- Evident from the text: The paper is a lecture/review rather than a systematic meta-analysis for most claims, and it relies on heterogeneous experiments with different designs, populations, and settings; external validity is only partially addressed, for example through the CEO replication.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
137 Own interpretation · 98 Not checked yet · 10 No basis given · 3 Own result · 1 Partly supported · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The authors also find that verbal reinforcements like, e.g., telling subjects that they did well on the task, have a strong positive effect on both the behavioural and the self-report measures of intrinsic motivation.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (around pp. 638–639) report that verbal rewards enhanced both free-choice behavior and self-reported interest. But the paper describes the average effects as small to moderate, not strong, and finds no enhancement of children's free-choice behavior. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while if workers have the opportunity to cooperate voluntarily with their employer, wages remain far above the competitive level.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Kirchsteiger and Riedl (1993)
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Falk (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“First, there is still a lot of shirking as indicated by the difference between the desired effort and the actual effort.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter & Kirchsteiger 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“If the experimenter rules out voluntary cooperation by fixing the effort level exogenously, wages converge to the competitive level,”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Kirchsteiger and Riedl (1993)
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Falk (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These experiments explicitly show that reciprocity-driven voluntary cooperation causes downward wage rigidity because lower wages are associated with lower effort and lower profits.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Kirchsteiger and Riedl (1993)
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Falk (1999)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The experimental evidence indicates that a substantial fraction of the people exhibits social preferences.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Schmidt (2001)
- Not checked yetcites Sobel (2001)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, in addition to the reciprocal workers there is also a substantial fraction of selfish workers who always choose the minimal effort or who rarely respond in a reciprocal manner.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter & Kirchsteiger 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In this section we provide evidence indicating that reciprocity induces agents to cooperate voluntarily with the principal if the principal treats them kindly.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger (1997)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reciprocity-driven voluntary cooperation also plays an important role in the context of the provision of public goods.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Croson (2000)
- Not checked yetcites Fischbacher, Gächter and Fehr (2001) source
- Not checked yetcites Falk and Fischbacher (2001)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The average effort in this treatment is even below e = 0.4, the level that can be forced on selfinterested agents by imposing the maximal fine.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“while - despite the lower surplus - the employers' profits are higher in the treatment with the negatively framed incentive.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The reduction in effort is associated with a reduction in the surplus relative to the baseline treatment”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is circumstantial evidence for this because the testing and screening of employees is often as much about the employee's willingness to become a loyal firm member as it is about the employee's technical abilities.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In 69 percent of the cases the maximal fine was imposed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This graph shows that voluntary cooperation is substantially and significantly weakened by the availability or the actual use of the incentive.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the figure also indicates that in the absence of any explicit incentive voluntary cooperation is even higher than in the presence of a positively framed incentive.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, if the investors do not use the available incentive they receive even higher back-transfers than in the baseline treatment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The right graph in Figure 2 indeed shows that voluntary cooperation is substantially higher when the incentive is framed in terms of a bonus payment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is interesting that even if the employers pay a rather high rent the workers are no longer willing to provide much extra effort.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This effect is statistically significant (Fehr and Gächter 2000b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter 2000b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the main causes of downward wage rigidity have to do with employers' belief that other motivators are useful as well, which are best thought of as having to do with generosity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley 1995, 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, we will show that because of the existence of these motives, economic incentives may backfire and reduce the agents' performance or compliance with rules.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By neglecting these motives economists may fail to understand the levels and the changes in behaviour.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we will show that these motives interact in important ways with economic incentives.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of approval motives implies, among other things, that economic incentives may backfire and lead to permanent negative effects on rule compliance.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the case of reciprocity, the actor is responding to friendly or hostile actions even if no material gains can be expected.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, even if the incentive change that caused the negative effect on rule compliance is removed, the extent of rule compliance may have been permanently reduced as a result of the initial change in the incentive.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition it is shown that reciprocity by itself constitutes a source of powerful economic incentives.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our view these results are important because voluntary cooperation is relevant in many real world contexts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to emphasise that reciprocity is not driven by the expectation of future material benefits.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, Bewley's results suggest that reciprocity-based voluntary cooperation is the key reason for downward wage rigidity:”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley 1995, 1999
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, whenever employees have discretion over the intensity or the type of activity they perform voluntary cooperation is very valuable for the firm.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the comparison between the left graph and the graph in the middle illustrates the main theme of this paper - that in the presence of non-pecuniary motives there are important and, relative to the predictions of the economic model, unexpected interactions between material incentives and non-pecuniary motives.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Employers prefer, in particular, loyal employees who take into account the goals of the firm.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Managers report that the employees themselves do not want to work together with lazy colleagues because these colleagues do not bear their share of the burden, which is viewed as unfair.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This supports the view that conditional cooperation is important inside firms.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a close relation between the notion of reciprocity and the idea that employers often deliberately attempt to change the preferences of their employees in ways that help to achieve the firm's goals.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, threatening to fine a worker is an indication of distrust.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the presence of only self-interested agents the employer is always better off by imposing the maximal fine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This kind of conditional cooperation thus introduces strategic complementarity into public goods situations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A few shirkers in a group of employees may quickly spoil the whole group.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one acknowledges that many employees have reciprocal preferences the firms' attempts to change their employees' preferences are thus no longer mysterious.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, since the surplus is monotonically increasing in the effort level, the surplus is also maximized by imposing the maximal fine.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“because the existence of reciprocal workers means that employers can generate loyalty by being generous to the workers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is due to the fact that the use of the incentive allowed the employers to substantially change the distribution of the surplus.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our view the fining of workers may reveal hostile intentions for two reasons.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, they may even be willing to shirk in response to a hostile contract although the expected cost of shirking exceeds the benefits of shirking.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whatever the exact reason for the perception of a hostile intention is, if the workers perceive the fine as a hostile act they are no longer willing to put forward extra effort beyond the level that is dictated by self-interest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the fine per se may be perceived as hostile.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, from an economic viewpoint, the set of enforceable effort levels does not differ across frames.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the extent to which trusting actions are perceived as kind and distrusting actions as hostile, a fine will be perceived as a hostile act.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in economic terms the positively framed incentive is exactly identical to a corresponding negatively framed incentive.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Church reports that if the request for the completion and return of a survey is associated with an unconditional advance payment the response rate increases by 19 percentage points relative to surveys without concomitant payment.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Church 1993 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result suggests that reciprocity motives interact in important ways with cognitive factors.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The result of this study has also been confirmed by the meta-analysis of Church (1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Church 1993 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When they added a check for $20 to the questionnaire 78 percent of the doctors sent back a completed questionnaire.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berry and Kanouse 1987
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Controlling for the transfer levels, the back-transfers are much higher when the incentive is available but not used compared to the baseline treatment.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and List 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that the implicit message of a generous contract stipulating a fine is contradictory.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When, instead, the receipt of the check was contingent on returning a completed questionnaire only 66 percent of the doctors returned the questionnaire.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berry and Kanouse 1987
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a consequence they may do more harm than good.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that 'taking away something' is perceived as less friendly than 'giving something' even if the total compensation is identical.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our evidence suggests that these reference points can be manipulated by the framing of the incentive.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The kindness or hostility of an action depends on a reference point.
In the paper
“Moreover, when the payment of money is made contingent upon completion of the survey the response rate does not rise relative to the case where no payment is offered.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Church 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction between reciprocity and the behaviour of selfish subjects therefore takes a different form. It is based on the material incentives arising from the existence of reciprocal subjects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if a worker expects her employer to be a reciprocator it is likely that she will provide higher effort levels in the presence of a reward/punishment opportunity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The important feature of this design is that if there are only selfish employers they will never reward or punish a worker because both rewarding and punishing is costly for the employer.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They found that, by first paying physicians a certain sum of money, they could increase the likelihood that the doctors would complete and return a long questionnaire they received in the mail.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berry and Kanouse 1987
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the effects displayed in Figure 2 also hold in other settings.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that prenuptial agreements are likely to introduce distrust into a marriage because they require detailed discussions and specifications of what will happen in case that the relationship will be terminated.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The negative side effects of the explicit incentives mentioned above do not apply to selfish subjects because these subjects do not exhibit voluntary cooperation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the behavioral patterns induced by reciprocal preferences are even stronger among the CEOs compared to student populations.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Appealing to the workers' generosity and trustworthiness by being generous and, at the same time, expressing distrust by telling them that they will be fined if they do not respond with high effort levels does not seem to go together.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that the framing of an explicit incentive in terms of extra rewards elicits more effort compared to a frame in terms of punishment.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, in the presence of reciprocal subjects, the selfish subjects can gain a credible reputation for being cooperative by behaving like the reciprocal subjects. In this way they can ensure themselves employment and a higher material payoff.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the reward/punishment opportunity considerably increases the total pie that becomes available for the trading parties.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall the bonus contract is chosen in 81 percent of all the cases.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An important consequence of this increase in average effort is that the aggregate monetary payoff increases by 40 percent - even if one takes the payoff reductions that result from actual punishments into account.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 5 unambiguously indicates that the material incentives stemming from repeated interactions have a powerful positive impact on effort.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is much circumstantial evidence and questionnaire evidence supporting the view that (dis)approval has behavioural consequences (e.g. Rainwater 1979, Lindbeck 1995, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rainwater 1979
- Not checked yetcites Lindbeck 1995 source
- Not checked yetcites Lindbeck 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In repeated interactions it is possible to generate implicit material incentives that are not based on reciprocal preferences but on purely strategic rewards and punishments of self-interested actors.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The experiments by Fehr, Klein and Schmidt (2001) show that the reciprocal principals indeed behave in this way.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that the material incentives that are provided by reciprocal principals help solving one of the key problems in many agency relations, i.e., the problem of the provision of incentives when there are multiple tasks for the agents.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: In most employment relations, employees have to perform several tasks and it is often not possible to target explicit incentives to all tasks because of measurement and verifiability problems.
In the paper
“Moreover, the qualitative differences between the contracts are rather stable across time.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our view the powerful effects of implicit incentives in endogenously repeated games also arise from the positive interactions between reciprocity and repeated game incentives.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“First, in the control condition, which basically consists of one-shot interactions between employers and workers, there is a mode (43 percent) at the minimal effort level suggesting the existence of a considerable fraction of purely selfish workers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, Falk and Fehr 2001
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for the bonus contract the situation changes substantially if there are reciprocal principals because they are willing to pay the bonus if the agents perform well.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whenever voluntary cooperation is low or absent this solution is not viable.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the preference for reciprocity endows the principals with an incentive instrument that can be used to induce the agents to allocate the effort efficiently across tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These social rewards and punishments are a basic 'currency' that induces children and adults alike to perform certain activities and avoid others.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The material incentives provided by the ex-post rewards or ex-post punishments of reciprocal principals often constitute a superior solution to the multi-tasking problem because the principals can take into account the agents' performance in all the tasks even if it is impossible to write explicit contracts on most tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that cooperation is self-reinforcing because successful cooperation has the effect that the parties care more for the other's payoff, which, in turn, enhances the willingness to cooperate voluntarily.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“First, there is evidence (van Dijk, Sonnemans and van Winden, forthcoming) that successful cooperation in repeated interactions strengthens the emotional and affective ties between the parties, which is just another way of saying that the parties' willingness to take the other party's interest into account is strengthened.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Dijk, Sonnemans and van Winden forthcoming
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A comparison between their evidence and the effort effects in Brown, Falk and Fehr indicates that the opportunity of firing the workers is crucial.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Falk forthcoming
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The psychological properties of repeated game incentives are quite similar to the properties of reciprocity-based implicit incentives because they are imposed ex post without being explicitly announced ex ante.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that an important reason for this lies in the implicit material incentives that arise from vaguely specified contracts provided the parties exhibit reciprocal preferences.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Many contracts are deliberately left vague and incomplete, specifying important obligations in vague terms and not tying monetary payoffs to performance measures.
In the paper
“For example, in the experiments of Brown, Falk and Fehr (2001) the employers could not explicitly threaten to fire shirking workers but in fact they did.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, Falk and Fehr 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the presence of reciprocal subjects provides incentives for the selfish subjects to mimic the cooperative behaviour of the reciprocal subjects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is well known from practice (Kerr 1975) and from theory (Holmström and Milgrom 1991, Baker 1992) that in this situation explicit performance incentives may be harmful because they induce the employees to concentrate only on the rewarded tasks and to neglect the non-rewarded tasks.”
What the sources say
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allowing even only a minority of the people to free themselves, although at some cost, from obeying the norm may trigger the unravelling of the social norm.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are cases in which material rewards and punishments work in the same direction as the approval motive.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The study of Moffit suggests that this is the result of the stigmatisation of welfare recipients because living on welfare violates work norms.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moffit 1983
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above examples suggest that material incentives and approval incentives may reinforce each other.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it seems likely that this way of introducing the fine transformed the act of being late from a rule violation to a market transaction.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Parents picking up children late violates a legitimate rule and faces disapproval, which is a nonpecuniary cost.
In the paper
“In the U.S. as much as 30 - 60 percent of the citizens who are eligible for welfare do not apply.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moffit 1983
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“people's willingness to contribute to public goods heavily depends on their perceptions of others' contributions (see Section 2.1 and Gächter and Fehr 1999; Falk and Fischbacher, forthcoming).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr 1999
- Not checked yetcites Falk and Fischbacher, forthcoming
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there may well be many levels of equilibrium contributions (see e.g., Lindbeck, Nyberg and Weibull 1997; Huck, Kübler and Weibull 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lindbeck, Nyberg and Weibull 1997
- Not checked yetcites Huck, Kübler and Weibull 2001
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by expressing social values and providing information about compliance with these values the principal may affect the agents' beliefs, which in turn affects the process of equilibrium selection.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moffit (1983) provides econometric evidence consistent with this view.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moffit 1983
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The fact that the experimenter observes the subjects' contributions is likely to be not important.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoffman et al. (1994)
- Not checked yetcites Bolton, Katok and Zwick (1998)
- Not checked yetcites Johanneson and Persson (2000)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of multiple equilibria in situations involving social approval also provides a plausible explanation for the fact that the removal of the fine did not induce the parents to return to pre-fine compliance levels.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is also another experiment by Gneezy and Rustichini (2000b) suggesting that the introduction of explicit incentives may weaken approval incentives.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gneezy and Rustichini (2000b)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the bold line represents the reaction function of each individual there are three equilibria. There is a stable low-compliance equilibrium (point A), an unstable equilibrium (point B) and a stable high-compliance equilibrium (point C).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Individual i's level of compliance with a morally legitimate rule is higher the higher the average compliance of others.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recently Gächter and Fehr (1999) and Rege and Telle (2001) provided experimental evidence suggesting that social rewards and punishments affect behaviour.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr 1999
- Not checked yetcites Rege and Telle 2001
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the desire for social approval is typically closely connected to the desire to deserve social approval.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adam Smith (1759)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the sanctions associated with norm violations also perform an expressive function that adds to, or subtracts from, the material effects of the sanctions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They show that free riding elicits extremely strong negative emotions among the other group members.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr (1999)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Taken together, the stylised facts of Gneezy and Rustichini (2000a) can therefore be neatly explained by the interaction between approval incentives and material incentives.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gneezy and Rustichini (2000a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They show that an individual's gain in social approval arising from an increase in the contribution to a public good is the higher the higher the average contribution of the other group members.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr (1999)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“small changes in the environment that reduce an individual's compliance level may cause large behavioural effects because the high compliance equilibria may vanish.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the marginal social approval arising from an individual's praise-worthy behaviour is likely to depend positively on the average level of the others' praise-worthy behaviour.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“given some minimal social contact among strangers, making individual contributions publicly observable raises contributions to the public good substantially.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If actors also want to be worthy of praise they engage in the moral behaviour even when unobserved.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a key factor is whether effort produces positive or negative externalities for the other workers.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“under a piece rate regime workers tend to develop effort-withholding norms because if they work 'too hard' the principal has an incentive to change the base-wage and/or the piece rate to the workers' disadvantage (Homans 1951, p. 79).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Homans 1951
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the sign of the externality determines the nature of the effort norm.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, in contrast, the marginal disutility of effort is changed by variations in economic incentives, it is no longer possible to predict changes in effort correctly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“when the workers are paid according to the output of the whole team workers often seem to develop effort-enhancing norms (Kandel and Lazear 1992, Rehder 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kandel and Lazear 1992
- Not checked yetcites Rehder 1990
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A final concern is related to the fact that in the experiments monetary rewards are given for a task for which subjects typically do not expect to be paid, e.g. solving a puzzle.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“under certain conditions there is a powerful defence for the assumption that effort is disliked at the margin. If one is not interested in explaining the absolute level of an activity but only the change in the activity level that occurs as a result of a change in incentives or other environmental factors the assumption may cause no harm.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the experiment exhibits in our view several features that render this interpretation not fully convincing.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a careful meta-study that includes 128 experiments Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) provide summary statistics on the effects of engagement contingent, completion contingent and performance contingent monetary rewards on self-report measures of intrinsic motivation, and on behavioural measures as the one in the original study by Deci (1971).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Staw et al. show that intrinsic task motivation is crowded out only for those tasks for which the payment of money is situationally inappropriate, i.e., in situations in which there is usually no pecuniary compensation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Staw, Calder and Hess (1975)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“monetary rewards for performing a task may decrease the effort that is put into the task.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If one measures intrinsic motivation by self-reports of enjoyment and interest in the task the effects are, although significant, much smaller.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Whether external rewards enhance or undermine intrinsic motivation depends on their effects on perceived self-determination and perceived competence.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deci and Ryan 1980, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In social psychology there is a large literature on the crowding out of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic incentives that calls the exogeneity assumption into question (e.g., Deci 1971; Kruglanski, Friedman and Zeevi 1971; Lepper, Greene and Nisbett 1973; Deci and Ryan 1985; Deci, Koestner and Ryan 1999).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if individuals first face a salient external incentive that is subsequently removed, they will end up with a lower level of intrinsic motivation compared to a situation where they did not face an external incentive at all.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if crowding out effects are operative it may still be efficient to use material incentives. This is so because, from an economic viewpoint, it is the total sum of incentive effects that matters.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: From an economic viewpoint, it is the total sum of incentive effects that matters.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as Section 2.3 and 2.4 have shown the absence of explicit incentives does by no means imply that material incentives are absent.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Their results indicate that if subjects expect a monetary reward intrinsic motivation (measured by the time spent on the task) is undermined irrespective of whether the reward is engagement contingent, completion contingent or performance contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it may be case that the boy enjoyed moving the lawn when he was not paid, and does no longer enjoy mowing the lawn when paid, because his intrinsic enjoyment is crowded out, we find an interpretation in terms of negative reciprocity and loss aversion more plausible.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We are, for instance, not aware of convincing studies separating the disappointment effect, stemming from the removal of a monetary reward from one phase to the next, from the crowding out effect.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“under tournament incentives peer pressure against high-performers will develop because high effort constitutes a negative externality for the competing workers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the negative impact on intrinsic motivation seems to be quite similar across the different reward conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of the evidence cited by these authors in favour of crowding out of intrinsic motivation is also ambiguous because there are large differences between what people say they would do if offered money and what they actually do.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, the studies on intrinsic motivation have only examined the interaction between different forms of explicit (engagement contingent, completion contingent and performance contingent) rewards and intrinsic motivation.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, when the authorities actually offered monetary compensation a three fifth majority voted in favor of the repository.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frey, Oberholzer-Gee, Eichenberger (1996)
- Not checked yetcites Frey and Oberholzer-Gee (1997)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is, therefore, not possible to examine the efficiency consequences of potential crowding out effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we believe that the case for the importance of crowding out of intrinsic motivation in economic interactions has yet to be established.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2 How relevant is crowding out of intrinsic motivation for economics? · p. 46 · hedged
“Taken together the above arguments suggest that the case for the economic relevance of crowding out of task-specific intrinsic motivation has yet to be made.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.2 How relevant is crowding out of intrinsic motivation for economics? · p. 46 · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the assumption that effort causes a marginal disutility at all activity levels, prevents economists from understanding the levels at which these tasks are performed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Many economic activities are intrinsically rewarding; people derive pleasure from the activity, and over some range pleasure increases with activity level.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that this interpretation is problematic because empirically and conceptually distinct phenomena like approval driven social norms, the reciprocity motive and preferences for working on interesting tasks are assumed to be shaped by the same forces.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with this interpretation is that it confuses behaviour with motives.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is the central thesis of our paper that an appropriate understanding of incentives and, hence, also of contracts and organizations requires that these motives are taken into account.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, whenever people change an activity, we claim that this happens because their intrinsic motivation for this activity has somehow changed, our explanations become empty.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neglecting these motives creates the serious risk that economists may not understand the levels of performance and the changes in performance that are induced by changes in incentives.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason is that a preference for reciprocity implies that agents reduce their voluntary cooperation in response to hostile acts like, e.g., the explicit threat of being fined.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, since non-pecuniary motives interact in different ways with different types of incentives the neglect of these motives is also likely to create a distorted view of the relative performance of different incentives.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recall, for instance, the experiments by Fehr and Gächter (2000b) where the explicit threat to fine an agent decreased the agent's voluntary cooperation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, progress in understanding the actual effects of incentives has also been limited by constraining attention to an empirically questionable view of human motivation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, even if one is willing to label preferences for reciprocity as some kind of intrinsic motivation, the evidence does not indicate a weakening of intrinsic motivation, i.e., a weakening of the preference for reciprocity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, task-specific intrinsic motivation could play no role in this experiment because 'effort' was determined by the choice of a number.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reduction of voluntary cooperation is thus a result of the existence of reciprocal preferences and not a result of the weakening of reciprocal preferences.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 61
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is shown by Croson (2000), Fischbacher, Gächter and Fehr (2001), and Falk and Fischbacher (2001) that many people increase their contribution to a public good if others also increase their contributions, although, in material terms, each individual has a strict incentive to contribute nothing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Croson (2000)
- Not checked yetcites Fischbacher, Gächter and Fehr (2001) source
- Not checked yetcites Falk and Fischbacher (2001)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also worth emphasizing that similar results were obtained in the studies of Bohnet, Frey and Huck (2001), Benz, Fehr and Frey (2001), Evans, Hannan, Krishnan and Moser (2001) and Schulze and Frank (2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bohnet, Frey and Huck (2001) source
- Not checked yetcites Benz, Fehr and Frey (2001)
- Not checked yetcites Evans, Hannan, Krishnan and Moser (2001)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 98.5 percent of all the cases the employers stipulated a fine in this treatment and only in 1.5 percent of the cases they set f = 0.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000b)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total surplus and the investors' average payoffs are highest when the incentive is available but not used.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the last two decades economists have made much progress in understanding incentives, contracts and organisations. Yet, they constrained their attention to a very narrow and empirically questionable view of human motivation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Section 2 provides experimental evidence indicating that reciprocity may severely weaken certain economic incentives while at the same time strengthening other kinds of economic incentives.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contract theory and principal-agent theory, for example, typically restrict their attention to the motives to achieve income through effort and to avoid risks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that, although the results and the claims of this literature are intriguing and interesting, the economic relevance of this literature has yet to be shown.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will provide evidence suggesting that powerful non-pecuniary motives like the desire to reciprocate or the desire to avoid social disapproval, also shape human behaviour.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bewley reports that 'managers claim that workers have so many opportunities to take advantage of employers that it is not wise to depend on coercion and financial incentives alone as motivators' (Bewley 1995, p. 252).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley 1995, p. 252
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of conditional cooperation renders the management of the workers' beliefs about the other workers' effort important because if a conditional cooperator believes that the others shirk he will also tend to shirk.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yet, despite this their whole book is then based on the assumption that people behave as if they 'were entirely motivated by narrow, selfish concerns'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Milgrom and Roberts (1992)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The notion of reciprocity provides a natural interpretation of the evidence in Figure 2.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this reason employers have a strong interest in recruiting employees who have favourable preferences and whose preferences can be affected in favourable ways.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Milgrom and Roberts (1992) acknowledge this point when they write that 'important features of many organisations can best be understood in terms of deliberate attempts to change preferences of individual participants'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Milgrom and Roberts (1992)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The very fact that employees have so many opportunities to take advantage of their employer renders loyal workers very valuable for the employer.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If it is true that some people are more self-interested than others then choosing the 'right' people is one way of affecting the preferences of a firm's workforce.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bewley (1999), for example, reports that personnel managers use the possibility of firing workers mainly as a means to remove 'bad characters and incompetents' from the group and not as a threat to discipline the workers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley (1999)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The reason is that explicit threats create a hostile atmosphere and may even reduce the workers' general willingness to cooperate with the firm.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley (1999)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Therefore, the firing of lazy workers is mainly used to establish internal equity, and to prevent the unravelling of cooperation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bewley (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A marriage thus has to be based on mutual trust because otherwise it will not function well.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including contingencies about what will happen if one party fails to abide by the contract is likely to be taken as an indication of distrust and perhaps even hostility, which in turn may trigger what the prenuptial agreement attempted to avoid - a lack of mutual trust and cooperation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, it also seems likely that being trusted is in itself valuable for the trustee.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the positive frame the base wage is the natural reference point and the bonus focuses attention on the fact that something will be given if the desired effort is provided.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In the positive frame, the base wage is the natural reference point.
In the paper
“However, the differences across the treatments with and without incentives were qualitatively similar and quantitatively even larger than in the study by Fehr and Rockenbach.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and List 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It turns out that in case of underprovision workers expect to be punished in 54 percent of the cases and the expected average investment into punishment is 4 MUs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The presence of this opportunity decreases shirking from 83 percent to 26 percent of the trades, increases exact provision of ê from 14 to 36 percent and increases overprovision from 3 to 38 percent of the trades.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If workers exactly meet the desired effort employers still reward in 41 percent of the cases and the average investment into rewarding is 4.5 MUs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If there is underprovision of effort employers punish in 68 percent of the cases and the average investment in punishment is 7 MUs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If there is overprovision employers reward in 70 percent of these cases and the average investment in rewarding is also 7 MUs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since it is impossible to specify all aspects of a marriage in a comprehensive contract, a marriage is always based on implicit agreements and voluntary cooperation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the negative frame the total compensation in case of nonshirking is the natural reference point and the fine focuses attention on the fact that something will be taken away in case of shirking.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In the negative frame, the total compensation in case of nonshirking is the natural reference point.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In section 2.1 we mentioned that, although a substantial fraction of experimental subjects exhibits reciprocal behaviour, there is also a large fraction of subjects who behave in a purely selfish manner.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In case of overprovision they expect to receive a reward in 98 percent of the cases with an expected average investment of 6.5 MUs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The average effort level is increased from e = 0.37 to e = 0.65 so that the gap between desired and actual effort levels almost vanishes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Gächter and Kirchsteiger 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Holmström and Milgrom show that if the task, where pay cannot explicitly be made contingent on performance, is sufficiently important it may even be better to provide no explicit incentives for any task.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Holmström and Milgrom 1991 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Third, and most importantly for our present purposes, the repeated interaction condition causes a huge increase in the effort level because it causes the modal effort to shift to the maximal level.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, Falk and Fehr 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This has been shown theoretically (Kreps et al. 1982) and experimentally (Gächter and Falk, forthcoming).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kreps et al. 1982 source
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Falk forthcoming
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The material incentives that are created through reciprocal responses are implicit because they are not based on contractual commitments.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In particular, the maximal effort is achieved in less than 5 percent of the cases while the minimal effort level still occurs in 16 percent of the cases.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Falk forthcoming
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, this solution presupposes a high degree of voluntary cooperation so that employees are willing to perform in the absence of any incentives.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“It turns out that the average bonus is strongly increasing in total effort and decreasing in effort differences across tasks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Second, however, the majority of effort levels are above the minimal level, which is consistent with the existence of a substantial fraction of reciprocal workers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, Falk and Fehr 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our interpretation is that this disciplined the potential shirkers without offending the cooperators.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the piece rate contract the average effort is always high in the rewarded task while in the non-rewarded task average effort converges to rather low levels.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that reciprocity-based incentives based on the opportunity of punishing the agent ex-post exactly achieve this. These incentives discipline the potential shirkers because they know that a certain fraction of the principals is going to punish them in case of shirking without offending those who cooperate voluntarily because there are no explicit threats.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Most subjects consider shirking unfair if the contract offered the agent a generous share of the surplus.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approval, therefore, makes us proud and happy while disapproval causes embarrassment and shame and makes us unhappy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While social approval may be valued positively because it sometimes generates material benefits, we believe that most of us also value social approval positively (and disapproval negatively) for its own sake.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the presence of only selfish subjects the piece rate contract is more profitable and more efficient than the bonus contract although the effort allocation across tasks will be inefficient in the piece rate contract.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Circumstantial evidence and introspection suggests that many people like to receive social approval and try to avoid social disapproval.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, in the bonus contracts the average effort is almost identical in both tasks and fluctuates around e 1 = e 2 = 6.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr, Klein and Schmidt 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When the children are promised that they can keep 1 percent of the money collected the amount collected is reduced by 36 percent and when they are promised that they can keep 10 percent of the money collected the reduction in the amount collected is still 8 percent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gneezy and Rustichini (2000b)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Social norms also pervade the employment relationship. There are, in particular, effortenhancing norms and effort-decreasing norms.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Homans 1951
- Not checked yetcites Kandel and Lazear 1992
- Not checked yetcites Rehder 1990
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since moral behaviour typically is associated with social approval, paying for moral behaviour means that approval incentives will be reduced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A plausible interpretation of this is that in the approval condition subjects feared the disapproval of the other group members.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the baseline condition subjects contributed 34 percent of their endowment to the public good while in the approval condition the contributions were twice as high.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rege and Telle 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the introduction of the fine may be interpreted as a downward shift in individuals' reaction functions which caused the break down of the highcompliance equilibrium C and a gradual shift to the low-compliance equilibrium A'.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fehr and Gächter (2000a) as well as Carpenter (2001) show that this opportunity to punish has a dramatic impact on cooperation. While cooperation unravels to extremely low levels in the absence of a punishment opportunity, almost full cooperation can be established in the presence of a punishment opportunity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fehr and Gächter (2000a)
- Not checked yetcites Carpenter (2001)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“approval incentives are likely to cause strategic complementarity among the agents' actions, i.e., the strength of approval incentives depends on other people's behaviour.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it may be unwise for a society to replace imprisonment by monetary fines to enforce important norms.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paying the children money for their activity removes, therefore, the basis for social approval. Or put differently: The monetary reward reduces the approval reward.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Demanding a price for being late decreased the disapproval costs for the parents so that the total costs of being late may have been reduced.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social (dis)approval is a key element in the enforcement of social norms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“rewarding people monetarily for obeying social norms may weaken norm enforcement and may, hence, lead to a gradual erosion of normguided behaviour.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The emotions data in Gächter and Fehr (1999) suggest that free-riding causes a lot of anger among the cooperators and that this anger is anticipated by the potential free-riders.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gächter and Fehr (1999)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“imprisonment and fining may convey very different moral messages. While imprisonment unambiguously conveys the message that the norm violator conducted morally wrongful acts, fining people may transform norm violations into a kind of market transaction.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“from week 7 onwards, there is a steep increase in the number of late comers until their number is roughly twice as high as in the baseline condition. Moreover, when the fine is removed at the end of week 16 the number of tardy parents remains roughly twice as high as in the baseline condition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gneezy and Rustichini (2000a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This literature claims that the introduction of monetary rewards decreases task-specific intrinsic motivation under identifiable conditions.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this result holds more generally then the crowding out of intrinsic task motivation is largely irrelevant for economic contexts because, as a rule, individuals expect some form of monetary compensation in economic interactions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In economic contexts, individuals typically expect some form of monetary compensation, and monetary rewards are the norm.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of our concerns have to do with the fact that the changes in the time spent on working on an interesting task can be interpreted in different ways, and to our knowledge not all of the ambiguities have been removed in this regard.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the evidence on crowding out of intrinsic motivation is not very informative in this regard because there seem to be no studies that examine the impact of variations in the payment scheme on intrinsic motivation.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the survey the support of the voters dropped from 51% to 25% when monetary compensation was offered.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frey, Oberholzer-Gee, Eichenberger (1996)
- Not checked yetcites Frey and Oberholzer-Gee (1997)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, by paying the boy for mowing the lawn the father has revealed that he is willing to pay the boy for the activity, which improves the bargaining position of the boy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While in the treatment condition the subjects spent 50 seconds less on puzzle solving in phase 3 compared to phase 1, in the control condition the subjects spent 28 seconds more in phase 3.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci 1971 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Huck, Kübler and Weibull (2001) show that the size of the externality also affects the effort norm. In particular, by increasing the team bonus the principal can increase the effort norm. For this reason the optimal bonus is higher in the presence of an effort norm. Moreover, by choosing a sufficiently high bonus the principal can induce the agents to coordinate on Pareto-better equilibria.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huck, Kübler and Weibull (2001)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, implicit incentives based on reciprocity or on repeated interactions are frequently among the most relevant and most powerful incentives in economic contexts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“in both treatment conditions and in all phases the self-report measure of intrinsic motivation was very similar so that there was a discrepancy between the behavioural measure and the self-report measure of intrinsic motivation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci 1971 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the psychological literature does not address this question because neither the costs nor the full returns of the subjects' performance are controlled in these experiments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by rendering effort a positive externality, a principal can generate effort-enhancing norms while if effort is a negative externality for other workers effortwithholding norms are likely to arise.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, we do not know of convincing studies showing that the reduction in the behavioural measure of intrinsic motivation is not due to a signalling effect.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The disappointment effect is in our view a potentially quite powerful effect because the self-serving biases of the people quickly make them think that they are entitled to a previously paid reward and, if the reward is withdrawn loss aversion and negative reciprocity come to play a role.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Experience with children shows that they quickly feel entitled to rewards, even if given rarely, and become frustrated if they do not receive expected rewards.
In the paper
“For the behavioural measures this is only true for college students but not for children. Verbal reinforcement has no effect on the intrinsic motivation of children.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is, e.g., evidence suggesting that loss aversion affects inter-temporal labour supply behaviour (Camerer et al. 1997)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Camerer et al. 1997
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are, in our view, still some important ambiguities in the correct interpretation of the data and it is not clear whether crowding out of task-specific intrinsic motivation prevails in contexts usually associated with monetary compensation.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it is certainly true that the desires to avoid risk and to achieve income through effort are important it is equally true that there are powerful non-pecuniary motives that shape human behaviour.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the effects we have discussed in sections 2 and 3 are not related to the crowding out of intrinsic motivation: While intrinsic motivation refers to task-specific phenomena, reciprocity and social approval incentives refer to interpersonal relations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Falk and Fehr (2001) have shown that loss aversion lowers the effectiveness of tournament incentives which, in turn, induces firms to compress wages.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Falk and Fehr (2001)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time our experience tells us that one can rarely import a psychological insight into economics without modification.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Reciprocity is frequently quantitatively more important than other types of social preferences and has particularly important consequences in strategic interactions.
“This does not mean that we believe that other types of social preferences like, e.g., altruism or spitefulness, are unimportant. It reflects, however, our belief that reciprocity is frequently quantitatively more important than other types of social preferences and that it has particularly important consequences in strategic interactions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The kindness or hostility of an action depends on a reference point.
“The notion of a kind or a hostile action inevitably depends on a reference point”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the negative frame, the total compensation in case of nonshirking is the natural reference point.
“In the negative frame the total compensation in case of nonshirking is the natural reference point”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the positive frame, the base wage is the natural reference point.
“In the positive frame the base wage is the natural reference point”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most subjects consider shirking unfair if the contract offered the agent a generous share of the surplus.
“most subjects are likely to consider shirking as unfair if the contract offered the agent a generous share of the surplus”
The paper relies on this without support.
In most employment relations, employees have to perform several tasks and it is often not possible to target explicit incentives to all tasks because of measurement and verifiability problems.
“In most employment relations the employees typically have to perform several tasks and because of measurement and verifiability problems it is often not possible to target explicit incentives to all tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many contracts are deliberately left vague and incomplete, specifying important obligations in vague terms and not tying monetary payoffs to performance measures.
“In reality many contracts frequently specify important obligations of the contracting parties in fairly vague terms, and they do not tie the parties' monetary payoffs to measures of performance that would be available at a relatively small cost.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People engage in many tasks and activities because they enjoy them.
“There is no doubt that people engage in many tasks and activities because they enjoy them.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many economic activities are intrinsically rewarding; people derive pleasure from the activity, and over some range pleasure increases with activity level.
“many economic activities are, i.e., people directly derive pleasure from the activity and, over some range, the pleasure increases with increases in the activity level.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parents picking up children late violates a legitimate rule and faces disapproval, which is a nonpecuniary cost.
“if the parents pick up their children too late they violate a legitimate rule. As a consequence, the parents face the disapproval of the principal and of the employees of the Kindergarten, which can be thought of as the nonpecuniary cost for being late.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Individuals do not have perfect knowledge about the reasons for performing a task.
“A crucial assumption of self-perception theory is that individuals do not have perfect knowledge about the reasons for performing a task.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
People have a psychological need for self-determination and competence.
“Cognitive evaluation theory, on the other hand, assumes that people have a psychological need for self-determination and competence.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Individual i's level of compliance with a morally legitimate rule is higher the higher the average compliance of others.
“In Figure 6 we assume for simplicity that individual i 's level of compliance with a morally legitimate rule (i.e., the relative frequency of obeying the rule in a given time interval) is the higher the higher the average compliance of the others.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In economic contexts, individuals typically expect some form of monetary compensation, and monetary rewards are the norm.
“as a rule, individuals expect some form of monetary compensation in economic interactions.”
“since in most cases some form of monetary reward prevails in economic contexts”
The paper relies on this without support.
Experience with children shows that they quickly feel entitled to rewards, even if given rarely, and become frustrated if they do not receive expected rewards.
“Experience with children shows that they quickly feel entitled to rewards, even if they are given them very rarely, and if they don't receive expected rewards they are frustrated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are many social interactions for which monetary compensation is deemed inappropriate.
“there are many social interactions for which monetary compensation is deemed inappropriate (e.g. in schools and families).”
The paper relies on this without support.
From an economic viewpoint, it is the total sum of incentive effects that matters.
“from an economic viewpoint, it is the total sum of incentive effects that matters.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Overall, punishment can override altruistic motives, leading individuals to free ride as soon as the opportunity arises to evade punishment45–47.”
From Cooperation without punishment (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS · p. 47
“For a discussion of this point see also Tirole (2002).”
§ REFERENCES · p. 54
“Tirole, J., 2001. Rational Irrationality: Some Economics of Self-Management.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2.2 Explicit incentives and voluntary cooperation · p. 16
“A similar effect has been observed in a field experiment conducted by Berry and Kanouse (1987).”
§ REFERENCES · p. 49
“Berry, S. H. and Kanouse, D. E., 1897. Physician Response to a Mailed Survey: An Experiment in Timing of Payment.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.2 Social approval and material incentives · p. 30
“the recent study of Masclet, Noussair, Tucker and Villeval (2000).”
§ REFERENCES · p. 53
“Masclet, D., Noussair, Ch., Tucker, St., and Villeval, M., 2001. Monetary and Non-Monetary Punishment in the Voluntary Contribution Mechanism.”
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355399556151 · Cited by 11,264
Self-citationDeci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176
Multitask principal – agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design
Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991) · The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization · doi:10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24 · Cited by 6,046
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Self-citationEffects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Deci, E. L. (1971) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0030644 · Cited by 4,170
The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Smith, A. (1759) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00042831 · Cited by 3,629
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00150 · Cited by 3,118
Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Bem, D. J. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024835 · Cited by 2,959
Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(01)00394-9 · Cited by 2,780
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Akerlof, 1980, A theory of social custom, of which unemployment may be one consequence, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 37, 291
- Bewley, 1995, A depressed labor market as explained by participants, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 85, 250
- Camerer, 1997, Labor supply of New York city cab drivers: One day at a time, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 408
- Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., forthcoming. Why social preferences matter – the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation, and incentives, Economic Journal, in preparation.
- Frey, 1997, The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding out, American Economic Review, 87, 746
- Lindbeck, 1997, Incentives and social norms in household behavior, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 87, 370
- Moffit, 1983, An economic model of welfare stigma, The American Economic Review, 73, 1023
- Rabin, 1993, Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics, American Economic Review, 83, 1281
- Rainwater, L., 1979. Stigma in income-tested programs. Paper Delivered at Conference on Universal vs. Income Tested Programs, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
- Segal, 1999, Tit for tat: Foundations of preferences for reciprocity in strategic settings, UCSD Economics Discussion Paper 99-10
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy
Bandura, A. (2000) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064 · Cited by 3,294
Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.1.544 · Cited by 1,753
Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth
Jansen, B. J. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21149 · Cited by 1,766
“Additionally, altruistic behavior of sharing expertise with others has also been shown to motivate positive WOM (Fehr & Falk, 2002; Richins, 1984).”
BackgroundNormative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior
Lindenberg, S. M., & Steg, L. (2007) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x · Cited by 1,489
“Also, financial incentives may give people the impression that they have a right to pollute, since they have paid for it (Kopelman, Weber, & Messick, 2002; see also Fehr & Falk, 2002).”
BackgroundBlockchain technology: implications for operations and supply chain management
Cole, R., Stevenson, M., & Aitken, J. (2019) · Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/scm-09-2018-0309 · Cited by 1,044
Metadata
- Authors
- Fehr, E., & Falk, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Fehr, Ernst
- Venue
- European Economic Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 687-724
- ISSN
- 0014-2921 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2551486737
- Semantic Scholar
- 6d63c53094810d377841d540b836105c0b0f97b4
- Cited by
- 1,240
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 88
- FWCI
- 184.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.zora.uzh.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- European Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
- PsyDok Dokumentenserver für die Psychologie (Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation) (submittedVersion)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Psychology Archives
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Keywords
- incentives, motives, reciprocity, social disapproval, financial incentives, backfire effect, compliance, contracts, organizations, behavioral economics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
