• Graduate Programs
    • Tinbergen Institute Research Master in Economics
      • Why Tinbergen Institute?
      • Research Master
      • Admissions
      • All Placement Records
      • PhD Vacancies
    • Facilities
    • Research Master Business Data Science
    • Education for external participants
    • Summer School
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • PhD Vacancies
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Development Economics
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • The Economics of Crime
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Markets with Frictions
      • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 2026 Tinbergen Institute Opening Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Summer School
  • Alumni
    • PhD Theses
    • Master Theses
    • Selected PhD Placements
    • Key alumni publications
    • Alumni Community

Buser, T. and Dreber, A. (2016). The Flipside of Comparative Payment Schemes Management Science, 62(9):2626--2638.


  • Journal
    Management Science

Comparative payment schemes and tournament-style promotion mechanisms are pervasive in the workplace. We test experimentally whether they have a negative impact on people{\textquoteright}s willingness to cooperate. Participants first perform in a simple task and then participate in a public goods game. The payment scheme for the task varies across treatment groups. Compared with a piece-rate scheme, individuals in a winner-takes-all competition are significantly less cooperative in the public goods game. A lottery treatment, where the winner is decided by luck, has the same effect. In a competition treatment with feedback, winners cooperate as little as participants in the other treatments, whereas losers cooperate even less. All three treatments lead to substantial losses in the realised social surplus from the public good while having no significant impact on performance. In a complementary experiment, we aim to shed light on the psychological mechanisms behind our results.