MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance-based Reward: How You Get Paid Shapes How You Value Money

2015· article· en· W2615603793 on OpenAlexaff
Julia D. Hur, Loran F. Nordgren

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReward systemValuation (finance)Task (project management)Value (mathematics)PsychologyEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceNeuroscienceManagementMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can how you get paid decide how much you value money? Our study examines the effect of reward systems on subjective valuation of the reward. Specifically, we suggest that even when people receive a same reward from a same task, how they receive it can bias their valuation of the reward. Results from two experiments and one field study indicate that performance-based systems lead to greater valuation of money than do task-based systems. Furthermore, the effect of performance-based systems on the value of the reward is mediated by the increased saliency of a reward- seeking goal; performance-based systems activate a reward-seeking goal, which in turn increases subjective value of the reward.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207