Chapter 9 304 and uptake of deposit-based incentives. Yet, this null-result for both discounting and loss aversion remains puzzling. In a study on the use of deposit-based incentives to promote savings, Ashraf et al.32 found evidence that take-up was associated with discounting, and loss aversion is often discussed as a reason for low take-up of deposit-based incentives.21 The association between demand for commitment observed in this study suggests that it is particularly ‘sophisticated’ individuals who take-up deposit-based incentives. That is, individuals who realize they need commitment to perform tedious tasks realize that without such commitment in place they would not perform the behaviour even if they planned to do it. Sophisticated individuals realize they have such time-inconsistent preferences,16 and look for ways to constrain their future choices. In our study, this meant taking up deposit-based incentives, and, as such, voluntary taking-up an incentive scheme in which previously earned money is only returned in full if respondents complete all slider tasks. The association observed between demand for commitment and take-up of deposit-based incentives, therefore, shows that individuals who believe they want commitment in a hypothetical context actually restrict themselves. Furthermore, our results suggest that among respondents receiving depositbased incentives, those that chose them (by taking-up our advice) completed more tasks and earned more than those we randomly assigned to deposit-based incentives. Interestingly, this analysis showed that payment condition was no longer a significant predictor of the amount of slider tasks. A potential explanation is that when respondents get a choice in selecting their own incentive scheme, more motivated respondents self-select into a deposit-based incentive scheme, explaining the higher levels of effort among those with deposit-based incentive schemes in the nudged assignment. We find no such effect of choice for rewardbased incentives. Collectively, these results seem in line with Dizon-Ross and Zucker,35 who find that respondents use free choice among incentives to commit themselves to future actions. That is, those that expect to need commitment and are willing to pay a deposit self-select into deposit-based incentives and as a consequence earn more. This result, therefore, may also caution against widespread use of (nudged) choice, as sophistication is not the only predictor of demand for commitment. Willingness to enter into incentive schemes with deposit-based incentives may also be associated with ability to pay, i.e., income or socioeconomic status.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw