An experimental test of whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement in decision-making

Sandro Ambuehl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01817-8

IF: 24.252

2024-03-09

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:Around the world, laws limit the incentives that can be paid for transactions such as human research participation, egg donation or gestational surrogacy. A key reason is concerns about 'undue inducement'—the influential but empirically untested hypothesis that incentives can cause harm by distorting individual decision-making. Here I present two experiments ( n = 671 and n = 406), including one based on a highly visceral transaction (eating insects). Incentives caused biased information search—participants offered a higher incentive to comply more often sought encouragement to do so. However, I demonstrate theoretically that such behaviour does not prove that incentives have harmful effects; it is consistent with Bayesian rationality. Empirically, although a substantial minority of participants made bad decisions, incentives did not magnify them in a way that would suggest allowing a transaction but capping incentives. Under the conditions of this experiment, there was no evidence that higher incentives could undermine welfare for transactions that are permissible at low incentives.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement and thus have a negative impact on individual decision - making. Specifically, the paper explores two core hypotheses:

1. **Behavior Prediction Part (UIH - positive)**: Financial incentives will cause participants to be biased when processing transaction information, tending to look for information that supports participating in the transaction while ignoring or underestimating risks.
2. **Normative Part (UIH - normative)**: Due to the above - mentioned behavioral changes, higher financial incentives will reduce the overall well - being of participants, causing them to make decisions that are unfavorable to themselves.

These two hypotheses together form the "Undue Inducement Hypothesis" (UIH). The paper tests these hypotheses through two experiments, especially in cases involving highly intuitive and aversive transactions (such as eating insects) and risk - taking decisions (such as accepting a certain amount of risk), whether financial incentives will cause participants to make wrong decisions, and whether this influence is sufficient to justify the restriction of financial incentives.