Incentives and timing in relative performance judgments: A field experiment

Michal Krawczyk

Journal of Economic Psychology, 2012, vol. 33, issue 6, 1240-1246

Abstract: Several studies have identified the “better than average” effect – the tendency of most people to think they are better than most other people on most dimensions. The effect would have profound consequences, such as over-trading in financial markets. The findings are predominantly based on non-incentivized, non-verifiable self-reports. The current study looks at the impact of incentives to judge one’s abilities accurately in a framed field experiment. Nearly 550 students were asked to predict whether they would do better or worse than average in an exam. The most important findings are that subjects tend to show more confidence when incentivized and when asked before the exam (especially long before the exam) rather than afterwards. The first effect shows up particularly in females.

Keywords: Better-than-average effect; Overconfidence; Underconfidence; Incentives; Gender differences (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C93 D04 D84 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487012001067
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:33:y:2012:i:6:p:1240-1246

DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.09.006

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Psychology is currently edited by G. Antonides and D. Read

More articles in Journal of Economic Psychology from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().