One of the basic tenets of business (and especially Wall Street) is that the more you pay people, the better they do at their work. The behavioral economist Dan Ariely, who just presented at Pop!Tech, has done research that shows that’s not entirely true.In Ariely’s experiments, he came up with a variety of quick cognitive tasks and promised people money for doing well at them. One group was promised a day’s wages for doing well at these tasks. Another group was offered more. A third group was offered a full five months’ salary.In the graphic here, the three groups are on the x-axis and their scores are on the y-axis. What Ariely found was that as the promised payout got higher, their performance actually got worse. His explanation for this strange result is that money is a motivator for people, but it’s also a stressor. When stakes are really high, people get more anxious about doing well, and that anxiety actually hurts their performance. In the case of Wall Stree bonuses, the loss aversion effect kicks in, and people get extra stressed because they’ve already banked on using that bonus money to pay for their apartment or schools or vacation homes.Could we get better results from people-and particularly from the Wall Street types-by lowering the stakes slightly?
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

