Peer effects on worker output in the laboratory generalize to the field

Abstract

We compare estimates of peer effects on worker output in laboratory experiments and field studies from naturally occurring environments. The mean study-level estimate of a change in a worker's productivity in response to an increase in a co-worker's productivity (γ) is γ̑ = 0.12 (SE = 0.03, n(studies) = 34), with a between-study standard deviation τ = 0.16. The mean estimated γ̑-values are close between laboratory and field studies (γ̑(lab) - γ̑(field) = 0.04, P = 0.55, n(lab) = 11, n(field) = 23), as are estimates of between-study variance τ(2) (τ̑(lab)(2) - τ̑(field)(2) = -0.003, P = 0.89). The small mean difference between laboratory and field estimates holds even after controlling for sample characteristics such as incentive schemes and work complexity (γ̑(lab) - γ̑(field) = 0.03, P = 0.62, n(samples) = 46). Laboratory experiments generalize quantitatively in that they provide an accurate description of the mean and variance of productivity spillovers.

Cheating in the Lab Predicts Fraud in the Field. An Experiment in Public Transportations

“…This is why we replicated our experiment using students. In contrast to studies on cooperation in social dilemma conducted with both fishermen and students in the lab and in the field (Stoop et al, 2012), but consistently with most studies on other-regarding preferences, preferences for efficiency, peer effects or market behavior (see the survey of Frechette, 2015, andHerbst andMas, 2015), we find that the students' dishonest behavior largely replicates that of ordinary people from the field. Indeed, our second study confirms the within-subject correlation between dishonesty in the laboratory and in a real setting.…”

Do social interactions in the workplace lead to productivity spillover among co-workers?

“…However, when distinguishing between occupations with a high and low incidence of repetitive and predefined tasks, the authors do find larger peer effects in occupations with more repetitive and predefined tasks, such as cashiers, agricultural workers, and other mostly low-skilled manual occupations. This is depicted in Figure 2, which shows that the peer effect in wages for the occupations with the most repetitive tasks is found to be about half as big in magnitude as the average peer effect found in the meta-analysis discussed above [13] and depicted in Figure 1. A smaller peer effect in wages is what one would expect if productivity differentials do not propagate fully into wages (i.e.…”

“…A first step in answering this question is to systematically analyze the existing studies; this has recently been done in a meta-analysis of 34 individual studies, from which an estimate of a peer effect in co-worker productivity can be derived [13]. The results are organized in Figure 1.…”

Learning Better: Public Policy for Skills Development

“…On average, a 1 standard deviation increase in coworkers' productivity increases one's productivity by 0.14 standard deviations (Herbst and Mas, 2015). In principle, knowledge spillovers and peer pressure, which provide incentives to learn to be more productive on the job, explain these productivity increases.…”