Work that Counts, and Work that Doesn't: Labor Supply in Experiments and Real Work

Mattia Adamo and Michele Cantarella

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Do workers behave the same in experiments as they do in real life? Combining a real-effort emoji-counting experiment with platform records, self-reported expectations and recalls, and smartphone screen-time logs, we compare how the same workers on Prolific respond to randomized wage changes in the experiment and to wage variation in their actual work. Our results reveal that workers' behavior in experiments is remarkably different from real life. In the observational window, in fact, workers respond to expected wage changes just as they do in the experiment, but are much less responsive to unanticipated changes. However, once we condition on recall error in self-reports, we find that behavior in the two windows aligns. Recall error is then both a source of error for self-reported data but also the result of a process of inattention that affects effort itself, as unexpected wage changes often pass unnoticed.

Date: 2026-05, Revised 2026-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-exp
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.29832 Latest version (application/pdf)

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:arx:papers:2605.29832

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().