IGEM:Carnegie Mellon University/2009/Notebook/SUCCEED Survey and Peer Incentives/2014/02/09: Difference between revisions
(Autocreate 2014/02/09 Entry for IGEM:Carnegie_Mellon_University/2009/Notebook/SUCCEED_Survey_and_Peer_Incentives) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| colspan="2"| | | colspan="2"| | ||
==Entry title== | ==Entry title== | ||
Sent Alex papers on peer incentives: | |||
Data on Peer Incentives | |||
White, Dow, Rungruanghiranya, 2013: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379713004492 | |||
From a study of smokers in Thailand, the authors found that team commitment contracts can incentivize people to stop smoking more. | |||
Hamilton, Nickerson, Owan, 2003: http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v111y2003i3p465-497.html | |||
Uses data from garment factory that shifted from individual compensation scheme to group compensation scheme, the authors found that the adoption of teams improved worker productivity | |||
Babcock, Hartman, 2010: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16581 | |||
From a study in a university, the authors find that subjects who have been incentivized to exercise do so more if they have treated friends, though control subjects are not influenced by their peers. | |||
Berger, Herbertz, Sliwka 2011: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5618.pdf | |||
The paper investigates impact of incentive scheme structure on degree of cooperation in firms, and, based on a sample of German firms, finds a positive relationship between intensity of team incentives and perceived helping efforts, but no similar effort for compensation based on company performance. | |||
Heywood, Jirjahn, Tsersvadze, 2005: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=857678 | |||
From German data, the authors find that profit-sharing can increase cooperation in non-supervisory men, but has no influence on cooperation with those who highly value success on the job, and for supervisors it reduces cooperation. | |||
Jones, Kalmi, Kauhanen, 2010: http://ideas.repec.org/a/ilr/articl/v63y2010i4p606-626.html | |||
Using data from a food processing plant, the authors found productivity increased when performance related pay was added to teams, which highlights the complementarity between employee participation and incentive pay. | |||
Work with peer effects | |||
Sacerdote, 2001: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7469 | |||
Sacerdote uses data from Dartmouth roommates and finds that peer effects are very important in determining levels of academic effort and decisions to join social groups. | |||
Zimmerman, 2003: http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v85y2003i1p9-23.html | |||
Using SAT score and grade data from Williams College roommates, Zimmerman finds that there are statistically significant peer effects linked to academic ability, though the effects are not large. Furthermore, the effects are linked more strongly with verbal SAT score | |||
Mas, Moretti, 2006: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12508 | |||
The authors use scanner data from a supermarket chain to study how a worker’s productivity is affected by the productivity of a co-worker. They find there is strong evidence of positive productivity spillovers from the introduction of highly productive personnel, and that people are motivated by social pressure and mutual monitoring. | |||
Carrell, Hoekstra, West, 2011: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272710002070 | |||
In a study where the authors randomly assigned peer groups to individuals, they found there are statistically significant positive peer effects on current fitness, roughly half as large as the effect of prior fitness, and that a large portion of the effects were caused by friends who were least fit. | |||
Revision as of 20:19, 10 February 2014
 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 titleSent Alex papers on peer incentives: Data on Peer Incentives White, Dow, Rungruanghiranya, 2013: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379713004492 From a study of smokers in Thailand, the authors found that team commitment contracts can incentivize people to stop smoking more.
Uses data from garment factory that shifted from individual compensation scheme to group compensation scheme, the authors found that the adoption of teams improved worker productivity
From a study in a university, the authors find that subjects who have been incentivized to exercise do so more if they have treated friends, though control subjects are not influenced by their peers.
The paper investigates impact of incentive scheme structure on degree of cooperation in firms, and, based on a sample of German firms, finds a positive relationship between intensity of team incentives and perceived helping efforts, but no similar effort for compensation based on company performance.
From German data, the authors find that profit-sharing can increase cooperation in non-supervisory men, but has no influence on cooperation with those who highly value success on the job, and for supervisors it reduces cooperation.
Using data from a food processing plant, the authors found productivity increased when performance related pay was added to teams, which highlights the complementarity between employee participation and incentive pay.
Sacerdote uses data from Dartmouth roommates and finds that peer effects are very important in determining levels of academic effort and decisions to join social groups.
Using SAT score and grade data from Williams College roommates, Zimmerman finds that there are statistically significant peer effects linked to academic ability, though the effects are not large. Furthermore, the effects are linked more strongly with verbal SAT score
The authors use scanner data from a supermarket chain to study how a worker’s productivity is affected by the productivity of a co-worker. They find there is strong evidence of positive productivity spillovers from the introduction of highly productive personnel, and that people are motivated by social pressure and mutual monitoring.
In a study where the authors randomly assigned peer groups to individuals, they found there are statistically significant positive peer effects on current fitness, roughly half as large as the effect of prior fitness, and that a large portion of the effects were caused by friends who were least fit.
| |
