Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T15:42:04.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Erratum to: Incentives for creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Sanjiv Erat  and
Uri Gneezy
Sanjiv Erat*
Affiliation:
Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, USA
Uri Gneezy*
Affiliation:
Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, USA CREED, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Erratum
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 274 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Economic Science Association

Erratum to: Exp Econ (2016) 19:269–280 DOI 10.1007/s10683-015-9440-5

In the part of the instructions to participants that explains the rebus‐puzzle design task in our paper ‘‘Incentives for Creativity’’ (Erat and Gneezy Reference Erat and Gneezy2016), there are several shared phrases from Kachelmeier et al. (Reference Kachelmeier, Reichert and Williamson2008). We failed to cite them, and wish to correct this here. In their paper, Kachelmeier et al. (Reference Kachelmeier, Reichert and Williamson2008) examine how worker productivity differs when compensation is based on quantity, creativity, or the product of both measures. They find that combining quantity and creativity measures in a creativity‐weighted pay scheme results in creativity weighted productivity scores that are significantly lower than those generated by participants with quantity incentives alone. See also Kachelmeier and Williamson (Reference Kachelmeier and Williamson2010) for a follow-up study on self-selection, which shows that participants choosing a creativity‐based incentive scheme exhibit more creativity initially, but are not any more creative overall.

Footnotes

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9440-5.

References

Erat, S, & Gneezy, U (2016). Incentives for creativity. Experimental Economics, 19, 269–280. 10.1007/s10683-015-9440-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S J, Reichert, B E, & Williamson, UM G (2008). Measuring and motivating quantity creativity, or both. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(2), 341–373. 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00277.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S J, & Williamson, UM G (2010). Attracting creativity: The initial and aggregate effects of contract section on creativity‐weighted productivity. The Accounting Review, 85(5), 1669–1691. 10.2308/accr.2010.85.5.1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar

This correction applies to the following article(s):

Incentives for creativity

Sanjiv Erat  and Uri Gneezy