Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-sbgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T20:42:19.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hidden costs of control: four repetitions and an extension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Anthony Ziegelmeyer ,
Katrin Schmelz  and
Matteo Ploner
Anthony Ziegelmeyer*
Affiliation:
Strategic Interaction Group, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Katrin Schmelz*
Affiliation:
Thurgau Institute of Economics, University of Konstanz, Hauptstrasse 90, 8280 Kreuzlingen 2, Switzerland
Matteo Ploner*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Computable and Experimental Economics Laboratory, University of Trento, Via Inama 5, 38100 Trento, Italy
*
ziegelmeyer@econ.mpg.de
schmelz@twi-kreuzlingen.ch
matteo.ploner@unitn.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report four repetitions of Falk and Kosfeld's (Am. Econ. Rev. 96(5):1611—1630, 2006) low and medium control treatments with 476 subjects. Each repetition employs a sample drawn from a standard subject pool of students and demographics vary across samples. We largely confirm the existence of hidden costs of control but, contrary to the original study, hidden costs of control are usually not substantial enough to significantly undermine the effectiveness of economic incentives. Our subjects were asked, at the end of the experimental session, to complete a questionnaire in which they had to state their work motivation in hypothetical scenarios. Our questionnaires are identical to the ones administered in Falk and Kosfeld's (Am. Econ. Rev. 96(5):1611—1630, 2006) questionnaire study. In contrast to the game play data, our questionnaire data are similar to those of the original questionnaire study. In an attempt to solve this puzzle, we report an extension with 228 subjects where performance-contingent earnings are absent i.e. both principals and agents are paid according to a flat participation fee. We observe that hidden costs significantly outweigh benefits of control under hypothetical incentives.

Keywords

ControlLaboratory experimentsMotivationPrincipal-agent theory

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior M52: Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects C81: Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data • Data Access
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 323 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The order of authors reflects their relative contributions to the article.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9302-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly,, 13(6), 673–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkema, H. G. (1995). Do top managers work harder when they are monitored? Kyklos, 48(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartling, B., Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2011, forthcoming). Screening, competition, and job design: Economic origins of good jobs. American Economic Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2008). Does monitoring decrease work effort? The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories. Games and Economic Behavior, 63, 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive theory. American Economic Review, 98(3), 990–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96(5), 16111630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. S. (1993). Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry between trust and loyalty. Economic Inquiry, 31, 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K., Macho, V. (Eds.) Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79–93). Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Hagemann, P. (2007). What's in a frame: On demand effects and trust in experimental studies. Manuscript. University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (2000). Culture and democracy. In Harrison, L. & Huntington, S. (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
McKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095.Google Scholar
Schnedler, W., & Vadovic, R. (2011, forthcoming). Legitimacy of control. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Siemens, F. (2011). Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 115/1.Google Scholar
Sliwka, D. (2007). Trust as a signal of a social norm and the hidden costs of incentive schemes. American Economic Review, 97(3), 999–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, J. M. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions. Human Performance, 13(1), 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material

Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material 1
Download Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 656.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material

Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material 2
Download Ziegelmeyer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 416.3 KB