CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 827Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesSocial Power and Status DynamicsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets

Heyman, James, Ariely, Dan·2004·Psychological Science
DOI 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00757.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The standard model of labor is one in which individuals trade their time and energy in return for monetary rewards. Building on Fiske's relational theory (1992), we propose that there are two types of markets that determine relationships between effort and payment: monetary and social. We hypothesize that monetary markets are highly sensitive to the magnitude of compensation, whereas social markets are not. This perspective can shed light on the well-established observation that people sometimes expend more effort in exchange for no payment (a social market) than they expend when they receive low payment (a monetary market). Three experiments support these ideas. The experimental evidence also demonstrates that mixed markets (markets that include aspects of both social and monetary markets) more closely resemble monetary than social markets.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00757.x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.1037/0003-066X.51.11.1153 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Gneezy U., 2000, Journal of Legal Studies, 1
  3. Kreps D.M., 1997, American Economic Review, 87, 359
  4. Twain M., 1876, The adventures of Tom Sawyer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–824 of 824

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Ariely, Dan
ORCID
Ariely, Dan
Venue
Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-11
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
787-793
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
DOI
10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00757.x
OpenAlex
W2141729865
Semantic Scholar
5790f99f78e1b9d93ac121fa70c32e936e45db7e
Cited by
827
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 43
FWCI
16.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
expression_of_concern (2021-07-23)
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UST Research Online (University of St. Thomas - Minnesota) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
effort, payments, money market, social market, relational theory, compensation, mixed markets
MeSH terms
Attitude, Employment, Humans, Motivation, Psychological Theory, Social Behavior, Socioeconomic Factors

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.

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