Self-Selection of Peers and Performance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Kiessling ◽  
Jonas Radbruch ◽  
Sebastian Schaube
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Multiple Characteristics ◽  
Framed Field Experiment ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Selection Of

This paper studies how the presence of peers and different peer assignment rules—self-selection versus random assignment—affect individual performance. Using a framed field experiment, we find that the presence of a randomly assigned peer improves performance by 28% of a standard deviation (SD), whereas self-selecting peers induces an additional 15%–18% SD improvement in performance. Our results document peer effects in multiple characteristics and show that self-selection changes these characteristics. However, a decomposition reveals that variations in the peer composition contribute only little to the performance differences across peer assignment rules. Rather, we find that self-selection has a direct effect on performance. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

scholarly journals Human lie-detection performance: Does random assignment vs. self-selection of liars and truth-tellers matter?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Ask ◽  
Sofia Calderon ◽  
Erik Mac Giolla
Keyword(s):  
Lie Detection ◽  
The Other ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Detection Accuracy ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Detection Strategy ◽  
Accuracy Rates ◽  
Selection Of

Deception research has been criticized for its common practice of randomly allocating senders to truth-telling and lying conditions. In this study, we directly compared receivers’ lie-detection accuracy when judging randomly assigned vs. self-selected truth-tellers and liars. In a trust-game setting, half of the senders (n = 16) were instructed to lie or tell the truth (random assignment), whereas the other half (n = 16) chose to lie or tell the truth of their own accord (self-selection). We hypothesized that receivers (N = 200) would discriminate more accurately between self-selected liars and truth-tellers when using a feeling-focused (vs. detail-focused) detection strategy, and discriminate more accurately between randomly assigned liars and truth-tellers when using a detail-focused (vs. feeling-focused) detection strategy. Accuracy rates did not vary as a function of veracity assignment or detection strategy, failing to support the claim that random assignment of liars and truth-tellers alters the detectability of deception.

scholarly journals Honesty of Online Workers: A Field Experiment shows no Evidence of Self-Selection of Cheaters to a Cheating-enabling Work Environment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Albert Vranka ◽  
Marek Hudik ◽  
Nikola Frollova ◽  
Štěpán Bahník ◽  
Markéta Sýkorová ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Reporting Scheme ◽  
Hours Worked ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
The Hours ◽  
Manual Reporting ◽  
Selection Of

Does the choice of an environment where cheating is possible lead to its escalation? We analyzed behavior of employees (N = 284) hired to perform a task online. In the manual reporting (MR), employees could overreport the number of hours worked. In the automatic reporting (AR), the hours were counted automatically, making cheating impossible. Two-thirds of the participants were given a chance to choose the reporting scheme, the rest were assigned to the MR directly. Although we found that people in MR slightly overreported the hours worked, employees who chose MR did not overreport their hours more than those assigned to MR at random. Moreover, participants lower in honesty-humility were not more likely to choose MR; only those higher in emotionality were. The results show that even when enabled to cheat, online workers reported their hours worked honestly and the possibility for cheaters to select cheating enabling environments may not always lead to an increase of dishonesty in organizations.

scholarly journals Bonus ratio, individual performance, and Self-selection of housing brokerage employees

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 284-297
Author(s):  
Cheng Yu ◽  
Zong-Sheng Lee ◽  
Zhi-Yu Wang ◽  
Chun-Chang Lee ◽  
Chueh-Shih Lin
Keyword(s):  
Individual Performance ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Selection Of

scholarly journals Honesty of Online Workers: A Field Experiment shows no Evidence of Self-Selection of Cheaters to a Cheating-enabling Work Environment

2021 ◽  
pp. 101730
Author(s):  
Marek Vranka ◽  
Marek Hudík ◽  
Nikola Frollová ◽  
Štěpán Bahník ◽  
Markéta Sýkorová ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Selection Of

Fit and Congruency

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-156
Author(s):  
Mary Hogue ◽  
Lee Fox-Cardamone ◽  
Deborah Erdos Knapp
Keyword(s):  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Job Fit ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Working Adults ◽  
Role Congruity ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract. Applicant job pursuit intentions impact the composition of an organization’s applicant pool, thereby influencing selection outcomes. An example is the self-selection of women and men into gender-congruent jobs. Such self-selection contributes to a lack of gender diversity across a variety of occupations. We use person-job fit and the role congruity perspective of social role theory to explore job pursuit intentions. We present research from two cross-sectional survey studies (520 students, 174 working adults) indicating that at different points in their careers women and men choose to pursue gender-congruent jobs. For students, the choice was mediated by value placed on the job’s associated gender-congruent outcomes, but for working adults it was not. We offer suggestions for practitioners and researchers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document