TL;DR
Betting money on yourself can triple your success rate or destroy your performance entirely, and the difference comes down to one thing most people get catastrophically wrong.
Introduction
Here’s a question that sounds simple but isn’t: does putting money on the line make you more likely to achieve your goals?
The intuitive answer is yes. After all, nobody wants to lose money. That’s why commitment contract platforms like StickK.com let you stake cash on your New Year’s resolutions, why companies pay performance bonuses, and why your gym buddy suggested betting $100 on who loses more weight. The logic feels bulletproof: financial pain creates motivation, motivation drives action, action produces results.
Except the research tells a messier story. Financial stakes can triple goal achievement rates in some studies and crater performance in others. They can boost intrinsic motivation or completely destroy it. They work brilliantly for simple tasks and catastrophically for complex ones. And despite decades of studies showing that losses hurt roughly twice as much as equivalent gains feel good, loss-framed incentives don’t consistently outperform gain-framed ones in the real world.
The answer to whether money on the line helps isn’t „yes“ or „no.“ It’s „it depends.“ And what it depends on matters a lot more than you’d think.
Loss Aversion: The Foundation Everyone Gets Wrong
Let’s start with the bedrock finding that launched this entire field. In 1979, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky published a paper that would eventually win a Nobel Prize and become one of the most cited works in economics [1]. Their prospect theory showed something that contradicted decades of economic assumptions: people don’t evaluate outcomes rationally. We evaluate them relative to where we are right now, and we hate losses about twice as much as we enjoy equivalent gains.
The math is precise. The loss aversion coefficient sits at roughly 2.25 [2]. Losing $100 hurts 2.25 times more than gaining $100 feels good. This isn’t just a quirk of human psychology. It’s been replicated in 19 countries [3], demonstrated through brain imaging studies, and confirmed so consistently that it’s now considered one of psychology’s most robust findings.
The classic demonstration came from Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler’s mug experiments in 1990 [4]. They gave some people coffee mugs and asked them to name a selling price. They asked others to name a buying price for the same mugs. Sellers wanted about twice what buyers would pay. The moment someone owned the mug, losing it became psychologically more painful than not having it in the first place. This is the endowment effect, and it’s why commitment devices theoretically work.
Richard Thaler extended this into mental accounting [5]. Money isn’t actually fungible in our heads. We mentally label it. Vacation money feels different from retirement savings, which feels different from gambling winnings. When you commit $100 to a goal, you’re not just risking generic dollars. You’re moving that money from „my money“ into „goal money,“ and the psychological pain of losing it shifts completely.
Thomas Schelling, who won his own Nobel Prize in 2005, coined the term „commitment device“ [6]. His insight was beautifully counterintuitive: you can make yourself better off by deliberately limiting your future choices. Like Odysseus tying himself to the mast so he couldn’t sail toward the Sirens, we can bind our future selves to overcome our present-biased preferences. The theory is elegant. The practice? Complicated.
The Evidence: Financial Stakes Actually Work (For Some People)
Let’s get to the data. Do financial commitment devices improve outcomes? Yes. Sometimes dramatically.
The strongest evidence comes from developing countries, where researchers studied commitment savings products. Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin offered Filipino bank clients a special savings account that locked their money until they hit a self-chosen goal [7]. Among those offered the product, 28.4% signed up. After 12 months, their savings balances had jumped 81% compared to control groups. The people most likely to open these accounts? Those who showed time-inconsistent preferences in psychological tests. Translation: people who knew they had self-control problems correctly identified their need for commitment.
Platform data from StickK.com tells an even more dramatic story. The service, founded by Yale economists, has facilitated nearly 400,000 commitment contracts worth over $35 million in stakes [8]. Users who put money on the line report being roughly three times more likely to achieve their goals compared to those who make commitment contracts without financial stakes. Add a referee who verifies your progress? Success rates hit 78% versus 35% without stakes.
But here’s the catch. These are observational findings. More motivated people choose to put money down, which could explain the better outcomes. Randomized controlled trials produce more modest effects.
Take smoking cessation. Giné, Karlan, and Zinman offered Filipino smokers commitment contracts and found they were 3 percentage points more likely to pass biochemical verification tests at 6 months [9]. The effects persisted at surprise 12-month follow-ups. Not a miracle cure, but meaningful.
Weight loss trials show the same pattern. Volpp’s 2008 study in JAMA found deposit contract participants lost 14.0 pounds compared to 3.9 pounds in controls [10]. Nearly half the commitment group hit their 16-pound goal versus just 10.5% of controls. Sounds great, right? Except there’s a brutal caveat: the weight came back. At 7-month follow-up, after incentives ended, the advantage had evaporated. This pattern replicates across multiple studies. Financial stakes jumpstart behavior change but don’t sustain it.
The Loss Aversion Paradox: Penalties Don’t Beat Rewards
Here’s where it gets weird. If losses hurt 2.25 times as much as gains feel good, then threatening to take away $100 should motivate more than promising $100, right? The intuition is so strong that entire business models have been built on loss-framed incentives.
The field evidence says otherwise.
A comprehensive 2022 meta-analysis by Ferraro and Tracy analyzed every available study comparing loss-framed and gain-framed incentives [11]. In lab experiments, loss framing showed a small advantage (0.33 standard deviations). But in field experiments, where real stakes and real behaviors matter? The effect was essentially zero (0.02 SD). They documented significant publication bias, suggesting even the lab effects are overstated.
Several recent studies found loss framing actually backfires. Pierce, Rees-Jones, and Blank studied car salespeople at 294 dealerships [12]. They randomly varied whether salespeople received bonuses before or after performance evaluation. The loss-framed version (prepaid bonuses that would be clawed back for poor performance) resulted in 5% fewer vehicle sales and roughly $45 million in lost revenue over four months. Salespeople protected their prepaid bonuses through risk-averse strategies that tanked overall performance.
Another trial compared deposit contracts versus reward incentives for physical activity [13]. Despite deposit contracts inducing stronger feelings of loss (7.19 vs 4.21 on self-report scales), they didn’t improve outcomes. Worse, they produced weaker goal commitment than gain-framed incentives (5.24 vs 7.14, p=.03).
The most consistent finding? Deposit contracts suffer from terrible uptake. A massive CVS Caremark trial found that 90% of employees accepted reward-based smoking cessation programs but only 13.7% accepted deposit-based ones [14]. Among those who accepted, deposits were more effective. But when 86% of people refuse the intervention, population-level impact craters. This acceptance gap shows up everywhere: 28% uptake for savings products, 11% for smoking contracts, 12% for gym commitments.
You can have the most effective intervention in the world, but if nobody accepts it, effectiveness is irrelevant.
The Dark Side: When External Rewards Kill Intrinsic Motivation
Now for the truly counterintuitive part: external rewards can reduce the very behaviors they’re designed to encourage. This crowding out effect, extensively documented in self-determination theory [15], occurs when financial incentives undermine intrinsic motivation.
The seminal demonstration came from a 1973 study with preschoolers [16]. Kids who loved drawing with felt-tip markers were split into three groups: promised a „Good Player“ certificate for drawing, given the certificate unexpectedly afterward, or not rewarded at all. The kids who expected a reward showed significantly reduced interest in drawing during later free-play periods. The others kept drawing. The external reward had shifted their internal story from „I draw because I enjoy it“ to „I draw to get rewards.“
A massive 1999 meta-analysis of 128 studies confirmed this across diverse tasks and populations [17]. Tangible rewards significantly undermine intrinsic motivation, with effect sizes ranging from d = -0.28 to d = -0.40. Interestingly, verbal praise showed the opposite pattern, enhancing intrinsic motivation (d = +0.33).
Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini demonstrated crowding out in economic contexts [18]. They paid Israeli students small bonuses for IQ test performance and found that small payments produced worse results than paying nothing. A non-monotonic relationship between pay and performance. Their companion study looked at daycares that introduced fines for late parent pickup [19]. Late arrivals increased rather than decreased. The fine transformed a social norm violation into a market transaction, eliminating guilt and letting parents simply „purchase“ extra time.
Bruno Frey’s work showed this in civic contexts [20]. When Swiss communities were asked about hosting a nuclear waste facility, 50.8% agreed out of civic duty. When offered monetary compensation, acceptance dropped to 24.6%. Money was perceived as a bribe that undermined the civic relationship.
The practical lesson? Adding financial incentives to activities people already find meaningful can backfire spectacularly.
High Stakes and Choking Under Pressure
When financial stakes become very large, a different psychological mechanism kicks in: performance anxiety that impairs the cognitive processes needed for success.
Ariely, Gneezy, Loewenstein, and Mazar conducted experiments in rural India, where they could offer meaningful incentives without breaking the bank [21]. Participants performed six tasks, some mechanical and others cognitive, with rewards set at small (one day’s wage), medium (two weeks‘ wage), or very large (five months‘ wage) levels. The results were striking. In eight of nine tasks across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance. For tasks requiring cognitive effort, participants offered the highest stakes performed significantly worse than those offered moderate or small stakes.
Three theories explain this phenomenon [22]. Distraction theory says pressure creates anxiety that consumes working memory capacity, leaving fewer cognitive resources for the task. Explicit monitoring theory suggests high-stakes pressure causes people to consciously monitor processes that normally run automatically, disrupting fluid performance. Think of expert golfers who perform better when distracted from their mechanics [23]. Over-arousal theory invokes the Yerkes-Dodson law: moderate arousal optimizes performance, but excessive arousal tanks it.
Brain imaging studies have confirmed the biological basis. PET scan research found that individuals with higher baseline dopamine synthesis showed greater performance decrements under high incentives [24]. Monetary bonuses may impair cognitive control by over-exciting the dopaminergic reward system.
The takeaway? More money doesn’t always mean better results. Sometimes it means choking.
Business Models Built on Commitment Actually Work
Despite all these complexities, commitment device platforms represent a viable business model with genuine effectiveness for users who opt in.
StickK.com has facilitated hundreds of thousands of commitment contracts since 2008 [25]. The platform lets users commit money that gets forfeited to a designated recipient (friend, charity, or „anti-charity“ they oppose) if they fail to meet self-set goals verified by a referee.
Analysis of StickK’s dataset reveals interesting patterns. Users who designate anti-charities (organizations they find objectionable, like opposing political parties) show 6 percentage points higher success rates than those who designate pro-charities [26]. The prospect of funding something distasteful activates stronger loss aversion. The amount staked matters: adherence increases with commitment size. Users are four times more likely to start commitments on New Year’s Day and 40% more likely on Mondays or the first of the month, suggesting temporal landmarks provide psychological „fresh starts.“
A 2023 study documented a self-other gap in commitment contract selection [27]. People are much more likely to recommend aggressive anti-charity contracts for others (33-58%) than they’d choose for themselves (4-46%). This gap is driven by beliefs about effectiveness: we think others need stronger incentives. But the gap disappears when choosing for close friends, suggesting social distance moderates our recommendations.
Beyond digital platforms, research in developing countries has shown that simply labeling savings accounts for specific purposes (like school fees) can increase savings by 30% even without restrictions [28]. The psychological power of commitment can be harnessed with relatively soft interventions, though harder constraints generally produce stronger effects.
The fundamental business challenge remains the uptake-effectiveness tradeoff. The interventions that work best (deposit contracts with penalties to anti-charities) are exactly those that fewest people accept.
Workplace Incentives: When Financial Stakes Work and When They Don’t
Research on organizational pay-for-performance reveals that financial incentives reliably improve performance for simple, measurable tasks but show mixed or negative effects for complex, creative, or intrinsically motivated work.
The strongest positive evidence comes from Edward Lazear’s landmark study of Safelite Auto Glass [29]. When windshield installers switched from hourly wages to piece-rate pay, output jumped 44%. An enormous effect driven both by increased effort from existing workers and by attracting more productive workers. For simple, easily measured tasks with clear output metrics, financial incentives work exactly as economic theory predicts.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 108 samples covering 71,438 workers found pay-for-performance shows a moderate positive relationship with job performance (ρ = 0.23) [30]. Importantly, PFP simultaneously increases both intrinsic motivation (ρ = 0.14) and psychological pressure (ρ = 0.18), suggesting the overall effect represents a balance of beneficial and detrimental mechanisms. Effects were stronger in collectivistic countries than individualistic ones, and stronger for task performance than contextual performance (helping colleagues, organizational citizenship).
Healthcare tells a different story. A 2021 meta-analysis reviewing 116 studies of pay-for-performance schemes found weak evidence of effectiveness, with effect sizes often inflated by poor study designs [31]. Schemes that paid for improvement over time actually showed lower proportions of significant positive effects than those rewarding absolute performance levels. A puzzling pattern suggesting complexity in real-world implementation undermines theoretical benefits.
For creative and complex cognitive work, the evidence tilts negative. Teresa Amabile’s extensive research documents how external rewards and controls reduce creative output [32]. Financial incentives improve performance on „closed“ creativity tasks (constrained problems with defined solutions) but have little effect on „open“ creativity requiring unconstrained ideation [33].
The practical synthesis identifies several boundary conditions. Financial incentives work best when: tasks are simple and measurable, intrinsic motivation is initially low, incentives are large enough to be meaningful, performance criteria are transparent and fair, and incentives are framed as informative rather than controlling. They backfire when: tasks require creativity or complex problem-solving, workers have high intrinsic motivation, incentives are small, stakes are extremely high, or incentive introduction transforms a social relationship into a market transaction.
The Hidden Costs: Stress, Reduced Commitment, and Unsustainability
Beyond crowding out and choking, financial stakes can impose psychological costs that undermine wellbeing even when performance is maintained.
A 2025 study found that loss-framed incentives increased stress levels among participants even when they didn’t improve effort beyond gain-framed alternatives [34]. The stress was particularly pronounced among individuals with lower cognitive ability. Another study documented that deposit contracts, while inducing stronger feelings of loss, produced weaker goal commitment than reward-based approaches [35]. Participants felt more controlled and less autonomous. This aligns with self-determination theory’s emphasis on autonomy as a basic psychological need. When financial stakes are perceived as controlling rather than supportive, they undermine the sense of volition that sustains long-term commitment.
The sustainability of behavior change represents another critical concern. Across weight loss, smoking cessation, and exercise studies, a consistent pattern emerges: financial incentives produce short-term behavior change that often doesn’t persist after incentives end [36]. Volpp’s weight loss participants regained substantial weight within months of program completion. A 2023 study found that after removing performance pay, performance dropped below the baseline no-incentive condition [37]. Introducing and then removing incentives was worse than never having incentives at all.
This pattern suggests that relying exclusively on extrinsic motivation fails to build the intrinsic motivation and habit formation necessary for sustained change. Financial commitment devices may be most valuable as temporary scaffolding to jumpstart new behaviors while simultaneously nurturing intrinsic interest that can sustain those behaviors independently.
What Actually Matters: Context-Sensitive Application
The research literature supports several clear conclusions for those considering financial commitment devices, whether for personal goals, business applications, or policy design.
Financial commitment devices genuinely work for people who choose to use them. The effect sizes (81% increased savings, 3x higher goal achievement rates, 14 pounds versus 4 pounds of weight loss) are meaningful and replicated across well-designed studies. For individuals who struggle with self-control and recognize that struggle, voluntarily committing money to a goal represents an evidence-based strategy with substantial empirical support.
The choice between rewards and penalties matters less than commonly assumed. Despite the intuitive appeal of loss aversion, field experiments consistently show that loss-framed and gain-framed incentives produce similar effects on behavior, with loss framing sometimes backfiring through increased stress, reduced commitment, and gaming behaviors. The decisive factor isn’t framing but whether incentives are large enough to be meaningful and whether the overall structure supports rather than undermines autonomy.
Context determines whether financial stakes help or hurt. For simple, measurable tasks with low intrinsic motivation, financial incentives reliably improve performance. For complex cognitive tasks, creative work, or activities people find inherently meaningful, financial stakes risk crowding out intrinsic motivation or triggering performance-impairing anxiety [38]. Blanket application of financial incentives across all domains reflects a failure to appreciate these crucial boundary conditions.
Low uptake remains the fundamental constraint on commitment devices. Even highly effective interventions have limited population-level impact when only 10-30% of people accept them. Future research and practical innovation should focus on designs that increase acceptance without sacrificing effectiveness, potentially through default enrollment, social support structures, or graduated commitment levels.
The long-term sustainability of incentive-driven behavior change remains questionable. Financial stakes may be most valuable as temporary bridges to habit formation rather than permanent motivational structures. Successful applications will likely combine external commitment devices with deliberate cultivation of intrinsic motivation, autonomous goal-setting, and supportive social environments.
Conclusion
The psychology of commitment when money is on the line reflects a sophisticated interplay between ancient motivational systems and modern behavioral insights. Loss aversion, identified by Kahneman and Tversky nearly five decades ago, provides the foundational mechanism. Losses genuinely do hurt more than equivalent gains satisfy, creating psychological leverage that commitment devices can exploit. Yet this same asymmetry, when combined with excessive stakes or controlling framing, can trigger the anxiety and crowding out that undermine the very behaviors incentives are designed to promote.
The practical wisdom emerging from this research isn’t that financial stakes always work or always fail. It’s that their effectiveness depends critically on matching the intervention to the context. Simple tasks benefit from straightforward incentives. Complex tasks require protecting intrinsic motivation. Very high stakes risk performance anxiety. Very low stakes can paradoxically hurt more than no stakes at all. And across all applications, the people most likely to benefit from commitment devices are those who recognize their own self-control challenges and voluntarily choose constraint. Unfortunately, that represents the minority of those who might benefit.
For business models, workplaces, and individuals seeking to harness the psychology of financial commitment, the evidence points toward nuanced, context-sensitive application rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. The question isn’t simply whether to put money on the line, but how much, for whom, framed how, and in service of what kind of goal. Answering these questions thoughtfully, in light of the extensive research literature, offers the best path to designing commitments that genuinely help people become who they want to be.
References
[1] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
[2] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
[3] Ruggeri, K., et al. (2020). Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 622-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x
[4] Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737
[5] Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
[6] Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674840317
[7] Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635-672. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635
[8] StickK.com platform analysis. Founded 2008 by Yale economists Dean Karlan and Ian Ayres. https://www.stickk.com/aboutus
[9] Giné, X., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2010). Put your money where your butt is: A commitment contract for smoking cessation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.4.213
[10] Volpp, K. G., et al. (2008). Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss: A randomized trial. JAMA, 300(22), 2631-2637. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.804
[11] Ferraro, P. J., & Tracy, J. L. (2022). A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: A meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 25(5), 1441-1466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-022-09754-x
[12] Pierce, L., Rees-Jones, A., & Blank, C. (2025). The negative consequences of loss-framed performance incentives. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 17(1), 506-539. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20220512
[13] de Buisonjé, D. R., et al. (2022). Investigating rewards and deposit contract financial incentives for physical activity behavior change using a smartphone app: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(10), e38339. https://doi.org/10.2196/38339
[14] Halpern, S. D., et al. (2015). Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(22), 2108-2117. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414293
[15] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
[16] Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the „overjustification“ hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
[17] Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
[18] Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791-810. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554917
[19] Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1086/468061
[20] Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87(4), 746-755. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v87y1997i4p746-55.html
[21] Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdp033
[22] Yu, R. (2015). Choking under pressure: The neuropsychological mechanisms of incentive-induced performance decrements. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00019
[23] Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 701-725. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701
[24] Aarts, E., et al. (2014). Striatal dopamine mediates the interface between motivational and cognitive control in humans: Evidence from genetic imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39(11), 2455-2462. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2014100
[25] StickK.com, founded 2008 by Yale economists Dean Karlan and Ian Ayres. https://www.stickk.com/aboutus
[26] StickK platform data analysis on anti-charity vs pro-charity designations. https://www.stickk.com/faq
[27] Brimhall, J., Tannenbaum, D., & VanEpps, E. M. (2023). Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self. Judgment and Decision Making, 18, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.1
[28] Karlan, D. (2015). Financial Access Initiative research on labeled savings accounts. https://www.financialaccess.org/blog/2015/7/31/dean-karlan-discusses-commitment-savings
[29] Lazear, E. P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90(5), 1346-1361. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.5.1346
[30] Chen, Y., et al. (2023). A cognitive evaluation and equity-based perspective of pay for performance on job performance: A meta-analysis and path model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1039375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1039375
[31] Zaresani, A., & Scott, A. (2021). Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 21, 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06118-8
[32] Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/12-096.pdf
[33] Charness, G., & Grieco, D. (2019). Creativity and incentives. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 454-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx055
[34] Buckley, P., Roussillon, B., & Teyssier, S. (2021). Gain and loss framing to encourage effort provision: An experiment. Working Papers 2021-02, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory. https://ideas.repec.org/p/gae/wpaper/2021-02.html
[35] de Buisonjé, D. R., et al. (2022). Goal commitment in deposit contracts. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(10), e38339. https://doi.org/10.2196/38339
[36] Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191
[37] Vogelsang, T. (2023). Leisure time, performance pay, and crowding-out. Economics Letters, 231, 111266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111266
[38] Jenkins, G. D., et al. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 777-787. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.777