Incentives and Timing in Relative Performance Judgments. A Field Experiment

Michal Krawczyk

Framed Field Experiments from The Field Experiments Website

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 (see e.g. Barber and Odean (2001)). These 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 400 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 rather than afterwards. The first effect shows particularly in females.

Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00692.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:feb:framed:00692

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Framed Field Experiments from The Field Experiments Website
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Francesca Pagnotta ().