This paper reports the results of an experiment that examines how incentive-based compensation contracts compare to flat-wage compensation contracts in motivating individual learning and performance. I use a multiperiod cognitive task where the accounting system generates information (feedback) that has both a contracting role and a belief-revision role. The results suggest that incentives enhance performance and the rate of improvement in performance by increasing both: (1) the amount of time participants devoted to the task, and (2) participants' analysis and use of information. Further, I find evidence that incentives improve performance only after considerable feedback and experience, which may help explain why many prior one-shot decision-making experiments show no incentive effects. Collectively, the results suggest that incentives induce individuals to work longer and smarter, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will develop and use the innovative strategies frequently required to perform well in complex judgment tasks and learning situations.

Abstract Prior research on auditors' memory for evidence encountered during working paper review suggests that auditors commit memory errors that could inhibit audit efficiency and effectiveness. The current study extends this line of research by examining whether two prominent features of the auditing environment. The current study extends this line of research by examination whether two prominent features of the auditing environment, audit risk and information importance, affect the accuracy of auditors' memory and auditors' memory and author's willingness to rely on memory. These issues were examined in an experiment in which auditors were required to review two working-paper areas (accounts) and, 24 hours later, recognize if information items had been present in the working papers and express how willing they would be to rely on their memory for each item. The results indicate that (1) the accuracy of auditors' memories is positively related to the level of audit risk of the area and the degree of importance of an information item within the area; (2) the auditors' willingness to rely on memory is negatively related to the degree of information importance but not related to the level of audit risk of the area; and (3) the auditors' likelihood of referring back to the working papers is negatively related to the accuracy of auditors' memories, and this negative relationship increase with the degree of information importance. Collectively, these results suggest that audit risk and information importance altered auditor's cognitive activities during the review process in a manner that contributes to the effectiveness (e.g., better memory for more consequential evidence) and efficiency (e.g., less verification more strongly remembered and less consequential evidence) of the audit.

[Prior research on auditors' memory for evidence encountered during working paper review suggests that auditors commit memory errors that could inhibit audit efficiency and effectiveness. The current study extends this line of research by examining whether two prominent features of the auditing environment, audit risk and information importance, affect the accuracy of auditors' memory and auditors' willingness to rely on memory. These issues were examined in an experiment in which auditors were required to review two working-paper areas (accounts) and, 24 hours later, recognize if information items had been present in the working papers and express how willing they would be to rely on their memory for each item. The results indicate that: (1) the accuracy of auditors' memories is positively related to the level of audit risk of the area and the degree of importance of an information item within the area; (2) the auditors' willingness to rely on memory is negatively related to the degree of information importance but not related to the level of audit risk of the area; and (3) the auditors' likelihood of referring back to the working papers is negatively related to the accuracy of auditors' memories, and this negative relationship increases with the degree of information importance. Collectively, these results suggest that audit risk and information importance altered auditors' cognitive activities during the review process in a manner that contributes to the effectiveness (e.g., better memory for more consequential evidence) and efficiency (e.g., less verification of more strongly remembered and less consequential evidence) of the audit.]

Employment relationships provide fertile ground for both employee and employer opportunism. Employers worry about whether employees will devote sufficient effort to work, and employees are concerned about whether employers will compensate them appropriately. In this paper, we examine whether employer discretion over the size of the total employee compensation pool and the allocation of this pool among employees influences employee and employer opportunism. The results of our experiment indicate that firm output and employees' compensation are greater when the employer does not have discretion over total employee compensation, but does have discretion over the allocation of total compensation. We find that the employer's residual profit increases with discretion over the allocation of compensation among employees; however, we find no effect on residual profit of the employer's discretion over the total amount of employee compensation. Our results suggest that firms benefit from a compensation contract that establishes total employee compensation as a predetermined function of public, aggregate measures such as accounting income, but provides the employer at least some discretion to allocate this compensation using private information. However, our results caution that employees and employers may not have similar preferences for the degree of employer discretion over the determination of total employee compensation.

Business executives and academics frequently criticize budget-based compensation plans as providing incentives for subordinates to build slack into proposed budgets. In this paper, we examine whether either of two practices—using budgets to allocate scarce resources, or providing information about co-workers—reduces budget slack and increases subordinate performance when organizations use budgets for performance evaluation. The results from our experiment show that using budgets for both resource allocation and performance evaluation not only eliminates budget slack, but also increases subordinates' effort and task performance. Additionally, we find that an internal reporting system that provides information about subordinates' budgets and performance to their co-workers mitigates budget slack when superiors do not use budgets as a basis for resource allocation. These results highlight the synergies between the planning (resource allocation) and control (performance evaluation) functions of managerial accounting practices such as budgeting. Our results also suggest that by designing the internal information system to reduce information asymmetry among subordinates, the firm can increase subordinates' incentives to provide more accurate budgets.

Abstract Firms allocate significant amounts of common costs, and these allocations have implications for performance evaluation and remuneration. Non‐insulating cost allocations distribute costs based on same‐period relative performance, creating a contemporaneous interdependence between managers that in turn adds uncertainty to the link between effort and performance. In contrast, insulating cost allocations are independent of relative performance during the period and can thus be determined with greater certainty ex ante. In an experiment, we predict and find that managers' effortful performance in a stable production environment—where the pre‐allocation return for effort is constant—is higher when costs are allocated via an insulating allocation compared to when costs are allocated via a non‐insulating allocation. We further find that in an unstable production environment—where the pre‐allocation return for effort can vary from period to period—there are no differences in performance between the allocation methods when managers face a lower return for effort. Conversely, when managers face a higher return for effort in this environment, performance is greater when costs are allocated via an insulating allocation. Taken together, overall performance in the unstable production environment is greater when managers work under insulating cost allocations, suggesting the net effects of cost allocation methods are similar in each type of production environment. As such, our study identifies an important cost—lower effortful performance—of using non‐insulating methods to allocate common costs.