IGEM:Carnegie Mellon University/2009/Notebook/SUCCEED Survey and Peer Incentives/2014/02/03
 iGEM Project name 1
|
<html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page <html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html> </html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html> |
Entry title
Alex asked for papers more relevant to peer incentives, found these: Student incentives - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574069206020150
1. The performance of an experimental group in the past influences the performance under any group incentive performances in the present in terms of effort level. 2. Tournament-based group incentives are very effective 3. Monitoring works but is costly
In a team setting, team members value effort from other team members differently than their own, and team incentives are more cost-efficient, suggesting a social effect from working in a team.
If employees are outcome-linked, the optimal incentive scheme for individuals is individual reward and in group, it is group punishment. When people within a group have the opportunity to help one another, optimal group incentives are positive. Also, when people in a group can share information, individual and group incentives play complementary roles to each other. | |
