Experimental Economics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 154–179 | Cite as

On the provision of incentives in finance experiments

Original Paper


Monetary incentives are a procedural pillar in experimental economics. By applying four distinct monetary incentive schemes in three experimental finance applications, we investigate the impact of an incentive scheme’s salience on results and elicit subjects’ perception of the experienced scheme. We find (1) no differences in results between salient schemes but a significant impact if the incentive scheme is non-salient. (2) The number of previous participations has a significant impact on the perception of the incentive scheme by subjects: it strongly correlates with subjects’ motives for participation, positively contributes to subjects’ understanding of the incentive scheme, but has no influence on subjects’ motivation within the experiment. (3) Subjects favor more salient over less- or non-salient schemes in the gain domain and negatively evaluate high salience in the loss domain.


Experimental finance Incentives Salience Asset market Mispricing Information aggregation Investment decision 

JEL Classification

C92 D82 G12 G14 



We thank Stefan Palan, Felix Holzmeister, two anonymous referees and conference participants at Experimental Finance 2015 (Nijmegen) for helpful comments. Financial support by the University of Innsbruck (Hypo (Stöckl) and Nachwuchsförderung (Kleinlercher)) and UniCredit (Modigliani Research Grant, 4th edition, Stöckl) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors hereby declare that this paper reports all experimental sessions conducted within the course of this study.

Supplementary material

10683_2017_9530_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (790 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 790 KB)


  1. Bock, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). Hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradbury, M., Hens, T., & Zeisberger, S. (2014). Improving investment decisions with simulated experience. Review of Finance, 19(3), 1019–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Halladay, B. (2016). Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all. Journal Economic Behavior and Organization, 131, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ehm, C., Kaufmann, C., & Weber, M. (2014). Volatility inadaptability: Investors care about risk, but can’t cope with volatility. Review of Finance, 18, 1387–1423. doi: 10.1093/rof/rft032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, D., & Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental methods—a primer for economists. Cambridge, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmen, M., Kirchler, M., & Kleinlercher, D. (2014). Do option-like incentives induce overvaluation? Evidence from experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 40, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huber, J., Kirchler, M., & Stöckl, T. (2015). The influence of investment experience on market prices. Laboratory evidence. Experimental Economics, 19 (2), 394–411.Google Scholar
  9. Kirchler, M., Huber, J., & Stöckl, T. (2012). Thar she bursts—reducing confusion reduces bubbles. The American Economic Review, 102(2), 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirchler, M., Lindner, F., & Weitzel, U. (2015). No time for losers! rankings and risk-taking in the finance industry. Working paper.Google Scholar
  11. Kleinlercher, D., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2014). The impact of different incentive schemes on asset prices. European Economic Review, 68, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lohrenz, T., McCabe, K., Camerer, C. F., & Montague, R. (2007). Neural signature of fictive learning signals in a sequential investment task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104(22), 9493–9498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Noussair, C. N., & Tucker, S. (2016). Cash inflows and bubbles in asset markets with constant fundamental values. Economic Inquiry, 54(3), 1596–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palan, S. (2013). A review of bubbles and crashes in experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(3), 570–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Plott, C. R., & Sunder, S. (1988). Rational expectations and the aggregation of diverse information in laboratory security markets. Econometrica, 56(5), 1085–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, V. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. The american economic review, 66(2), 274–279. (Papers and proceedings of the eighty eighth annual meeting of the American economic association).Google Scholar
  17. Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. The American Economic Review, 72(5), 923–955.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, V. L., Suchanek, G. L., & Williams, A. W. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56(5), 1119–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stöckl, T., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2010). Bubble measures in experimental asset markets. Experimental Economics, 13, 284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilde, L. (1980). The philosophy of economics, chap. In J. Pitt (Ed.), On the use of laboratory experiments in economics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Banking and FinanceInnsbruck UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.MCI - Management Center Innsbruck, Department Business Administration OnlineInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations