SL Group 10: Symbolic Rewards (Incentivize) Flashcards
What is a symbolic reward?
Symbolic rewards are non-
materialincentives , suchas
recognition , titles , or awards ,
given to individuals or groups
to acknowledge achievements
or contributions . A symbolic reward often can
express acknowledgement and
status.
Examples of symbolic rewards:
Employee of the month:
- Photo is displayed on a wall
- ‘Public’ praise of efforts
- Receiving a badge / award / diploma
Sobriety badges in alcohol programs:
-Symbolic value
-Social recognition
How do symbolic rewards work to change behavior?
Symbolic awards addresses bounded
selfcontrol(present bias) and
reference dependent preferences (loss aversion) to change behavior
In the REFINE matrix it fits mainly incentivize
Symbolic awards can be considered
encouraging and motivating and can
also be used as a tool to express social norms.
What could some mechanism be?
In symbolic rewards we could use eg. loss aversion, social norms or addiction to change behavior.
Especially the social norm bias is effective to use to change behavior, because people care about what other people think about them. We all do, also those who say they don’t. Some examples could be, recognition: people get acknowledged for their work. Community: identifying as part of a eg. Wikipedia. Reputation: obtaining status in the community
Kosfeld , M. & Neckermann, S. (2011).
Getting More Work for Nothing? Symbolic Awards and Worker Performance.
a) Outline the research question and the design of the paper.
b) See figure 22 and 23 then describe the results
Question a)
Does the presence of an
award would affect the
students’ performance in a
company?
Design:
Context - An organization needed help with data entry and hired students for a short two-hour job. Experiment conducted in Zürich,
Switzerland
150 students divided into 2
groups: the treatment / award
group and the control group
* Task: Search for information of
Swiss communities and put into a
database. Students worked
independently for two hours.
People from treatment group were
told that an award could be won;
personalized congratulatory card
presented by the managing
director.
Control group did not receive
information about a reward.
Question b)
See figure 22
* Students from the treatment /
award group processed more
communities per minute compared to those in the control group.
* The average productivity in the award treatment group: 0.253 communities per minute. Control group average: 0.226 communities per minute.
See figure 23
* The points per minute were
higher for the award group
compard to the control
group.
* Award / treatment group:
average of 4.572 points per
minute
* Control group average: 4.19
points per minute.
* Other factors had no
significant effect on the
students’ performance
Conclusion
* Symbolic awards can effectively
motivate individuals, even in low-
stakes situations.
* Even if the awards do not carry
significant market value, a simple
trophy can already lead to better
performance and satisfaction in
work.
Gallus, J. (2017). Fostering public good contributions with symbolic awards: A large-scale
natural field experiment at Wikipedia.
a) Outline the research question and the design of the paper.
b) See figure 24 and describe the results
Question a)
Research question
How can purely symbolic awards affect the
retention and contributions of new editors?
context:
* A case study of Wikipedia
* Articles are based on contributions from volunteer
editors
* Challenge of retaining new editors
Design:
Participants: newcomers who have edited an article within the last month. 4,007 participants over 11 months.
People were randomly assigned to the treatment or the control group
- treatment group: Having their username displayed on a
public recognition page
- Control group: Not receiving any rewards. Not knowing about the existence of the recognition page
Question b)
Figure 24 plots the shares of editors in the control and treatment groups who become active again in the first month after the awarding date. This basic bar chart indicates that the retention rate is seven percentage points higher for recipients of the award. The error bars indicate that the 20% increase in the retention rate is statistically significant. This positive effect persisted for up to a year. Symbolic awards not only boosted direct contributions, such as editing articles, but also encouraged engagement in indirect tasks, including maintenance and coordination.
The study suggests that motivational mechanisms—such as recognition, a sense of community belonging, and reputational gains—play a significant role in fostering people’s willingness to contribute.
- The study suggests that symbolic rewards as a nudge is a cost-effective
way of incentivizing people to remain active editors
*Robinson, C. D., Gallus, J., Lee, M. G., & Rogers, T. (2021). The demotivating effect (and
unintended message) of awards.
a) Outline the research question and the design of the paper.
b) Describe the results
Question a)
Context:
It is common for organizations to offer awards to motivate individual behavior, yet few empirical studies evaluate their effectiveness in the field. The context is U.S. schools, where we explore how awards motivate student attendance.
Research question:
- Hypothesis 1: Students in the treatment conditions (the Prospective
Award and Retrospective Award conditions pooled together) will have
improved attendance in the target month as compared to students in the control group. - Hypothesis 2: Students in the Prospective Award condition will
have improved attendance in the target month as compared to students
in the Retrospective Award condition.
Design
The study employs a randomized field experiment with 15,329 middle and high school students from 14 school districts in California to examine the effects of prospective and retrospective symbolic awards on school attendance.
Study Sample:
Students from grades 6-12 who had achieved perfect attendance in at least one fall month (September, October, or November). The experiment excluded students with inconsistent attendance records, unreliable addresses, or prior participation in related studies.
Experimental Conditions:
Control Group: No award was provided (n = 5,216).
Treatment 1: Prospective Award Group: Students were told in advance that they could earn an award for perfect attendance in February (n = 5,209).
Treatment 2: Retrospective Award Group: Students were surprised with an award for past perfect attendance in a fall month (n = 5,204).
Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was student attendance in February (total days absent).
Question b)
Results of Study 1
Prospective Award Condition:
The prospective award did not improve behavior on average.
There was no significant difference between the prospective award group and the control group in terms of the number of days students were absent or the percentage of students who achieved perfect attendance in February.
However, after the prospective incentive was removed, attendance declined significantly, suggesting a crowding-out effect. This indicates that the initial incentive may have undermined intrinsic motivation, leading to increased absences once the reward was no longer available.
Retrospective Award Condition:
The retrospective award had a negative impact on attendance.
Students who received the award had worse attendance in the following month.
On average, students in this group were absent 0.06 more days than those in the control group, which corresponds to an 8.3% increase in absences in February.
These students were also 2 percentage points less likely to have perfect attendance (60.75%) compared to students in the control group (62.55%).
Hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (Awards improve attendance) did not hold.
Hypothesis 2 (Prospective awards lead to better attendance than retrospective awards) was confirmed.
Combining the results
The study found evidence that students who were offered prospective awards had better attendance than those who received retrospective awards.
- Students in the prospective award group were absent 0.055 days less than those in the retrospective award group.
- They were also 1.7 percentage points more likely to have perfect attendance in February.
However, as the results related to Hypothesis 1 suggest, this difference occurred only because the retrospective award had a negative impact on student behavior, rather than because the prospective award was particularly effective.
Symbolic rewards doesn’t work when:
Recipients may feel they don’t meet social norms:
* Receiving an award might make someone think their performance isn’t aligned with group expectations.
* This could discourage them and lead to reduced effort.
Inadvertent signals about expectations:
* Awards may signal that the recipient has exceeded expectations, making them feel they don’t need to maintain the same effort.
* This is especially true for retrospective awards (given after achievements).
Prospective awards can incentivize effort (temporarily):
* Promised awards might encourage more effort to “win,” but once the award is gone, motivation may drop.
* This aligns with the crowding-out effect, where external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation.
Social costs of being singled out:
* Some people dislike being singled out in group settings, even for positive recognition.
* In such cases, the negative social costs of an award may outweigh its benefits.
Tips for implementation of symbolic rewards
- Result from the first study conducted in Switserland: make sure to highlight social recognition, communicate the award, and set clear and motivating criteria for earning the symbolic award to encourage competition.
- Result from the Wikipedia case study: symbolic rewards such as
recognition, community identification, and reputational gains matters to motivate people to contribute to editing articles.
