Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a ield expe imen
on s uden pe o mance
Ge a do Saba e -G ande
1
·Nikolaos Geo gan zís
1,2
·Noemí He anz-Za zoso
3
Accep ed: 7 May 2022
©The Au ho (s) 2022
Abs ac
In his pape , we s udy o e confidence and goal-se ing in academic pe o mance,
wi h and wi hou mone a y incen i es. S uden s en olled in a mic oeconomics cou se
we e o e ed he possibili y o se ing hei own a ge g ade be o e aking pa in he
final exam. They we e also asked o guess hei g ade immedia ely a e hey had
aken he exam (“pos -dic ion”). In gene al, s uden s o e es ima ed hei pe o -
mance, bo h a he goal-se ing and a he pos -dic ion s ages. Con olling o se e al
sou ces o his bias (cogni i e abili ies, academic eco d and sel - epo ed academic
confidence), we find ha he use o mone a y ewa ds mi iga es he o e es ima ion o
po en ial achie emen s and elimina es o e es ima ion o ac ual achie emen s h ough
he imp o emen o ac ual pe o mance. Ou esul s sugges ha mone a y incen i es
do no cause subjec s o pu mo e e o in o co ec guesses bu make hem pu mo e
e o in o academic pe o mance. Using s uden s’academic eco ds o measu e
o e all skill, we find a s ong Dunning–K uge bias which is in ensified in he
p esence o mone a y ewa ds.
Keywo ds O e confidence bias · Re e ence poin s · Sel -chosen goals · Pos -
dic ions · Mone a y incen i es · Dunning · K uge cogni i e bias
1 In oduc ion
As has been es ablished by p ospec heo y (Kahneman &T e sky, 1979; T e sky &
Kahneman, 1992), human beha io s ongly depends on e e ence poin s which a e
used o assess whe he an ou come is pe cei ed as a gain o as a loss. Besides he
&Nikolaos Geo gan zís
nikolaos.geo ga[email p o ec ed]
1
LEE and Economics Depa men , Uni e si a Jaume I, Cas ellón, Spain
2
CEREN EA 7477, Bu gundy School o Business, Uni e si é Bou gogne F anche-Com é, Dijon,
F ance
3
Analysis Economic Depa men , Uni e si y o Valencia, Valencia, Spain
123
Theo y and Decision
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11238-022-09892-x(0123456789().,- olV)(0123456789().,- olV)
e e ence poin s which may be dic a ed by social no ms, indi idual e e ence poin s
may ela e o a ional expec a ions (Koszegi &Rabin, 2006,2007,2009) and goals
(Diecidue &Van De Ven, 2008). Using he p ope ies o he p ospec heo y alue
unc ion, Locke and La ham (2002) and Hea h e al. (1999) sugges ha goal- ela ed
e e ence poin s a ec indi idual in insic mo i a ion, imp o ing ac ual pe o -
mance.
1
Wu e al. (2008) p esen a model in which subjec s’pe o mance is
imp o ed by exogenously se goals. This finding was empi ically suppo ed in Allen
e al. (2016) and Ma kle e al. (2018), wi h a sample o ma a hon unne s. In he field
o educa ion, Meng (2019) es ed he e ec o g ade aspi a ion-d i en e e ence
poin s on s uden pe o mance.
In his pape , we s udy 2 ypes o e e ence poin s, depending on he iming o
elici a ion: sel -chosen goals, elici ed ex an e, by asking s uden s o se hei own
a ge g ade in a o hcoming exam and pos -dic ions, elici ed immedia ely a e he
exam, by asking s uden s o o ecas hei g ade, gi en hei pe cei ed pe o mance.
2
Following F ye and Ellio (2008), sel -chosen goals a e empowe ed and p oac i e,
c ea ing commi men and accep ance. Thus, as pe sonal bes s, hey ac as e e ence
poin s by inducing e o when cu en pe o mance migh o he wise be insu ficien
(Ande son &G een, 2018).
3
When goals a e associa ed wi h mone a y incen i es,
he pe o mance imp o emen is e en highe .
4
Whe eas goals can be conside ed as a ge -based e e ence poin s, pos -dic ions
can be used as ac ual beha io -based e e ence poin s. This is so, gi en ha “ he
expec ed alue o an ou come is an easily a ailable in eg a ed mechanism ha could
be used as a (…) e e ence poin ”(Hack & on Biebe s ein, 2015). Gene ally, he
li e a u e sugges s ha s uden s’pos -dic ions o pe o mance a e mo e accu a e han
any ype o p edic ion o a ge .
5
This is because, “whe eas p edic ions a e made
p ospec i ely and a e based on wha s uden s hink hey know, pos -dic ions a e
made e ospec i ely and eflec he s uden ’s expe ience o he es ”(Hacke e al.,
2008).
In his ein, we a e in e es ed in analyzing he e ec i eness o mone a y
incen i es o encou age s uden s o make a mo e hough ul assessmen o hei
po en ial and ac ual academic pe o mance. We hypo hesize ha mone a y incen i es
could educe s uden s’o e es ima ion bias by imp o ing hei guesses. Wi h he
objec i e o es ing his hypo hesis, we conduc ed a andomized field expe imen o
elici s uden s’ e e ence poin s, well be o e and immedia ely a e he exam o a
mic oeconomics cou se. In addi ion, we con ol o 2 po en ial ac o s d i ing
s uden s’ e e ence poin s: hei skill (po en ial o ac ual) and hei sel - epo ed
academic confidence. Con a y o ou hypo hesis, we find ha mone a y incen i es
1
Thei main p ope ies a e e e ence poin dependence, loss a e sion, and diminishing sensi i i y.
2
Expe imen al e idence sugges s ha goals and expec a ions a e c ucial in he o ma ion o e e ence
poin s (Hack e al., 2016).
3
In wo ds o an Len and Sou e ijn (2020), “Economic heo y (…) ha e shown how (…) goals can be
used as e e ence poin s in o de o inc ease pe o mance o loss a e se agen s o hype bolic discoun e s.
4
See Goe g and Kube (2012), Dal on e al. (2015), Co gne e al. (2015), B ookins e al. (2017) and
He anz-Za zoso and Saba e -G ande (2018).
5
See Glenbe g and Eps ein (1987), Maki (1998), Winnie and Jamieson-Noel (2002), and Se a and
DeMa ee (2016).
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
do no imp o e s uden s’guesses bu hei academic pe o mance, causing a
significan dec ease in s uden s’o e confidence.
2 Li e a u e e iew
This pape con ibu es o 3 lines o esea ch: (1) mone a y incen i es and academic
pe o mance, (2) mone a y incen i es and o e confidence and, (3) o e confidence
and cogni i e abili y.
Fi s , we deal wi h he e ec o mone a y incen i es on academic pe o mance.
The empi ical e idence a ailable
6
o e s mixed conclusions on he po en ial o hese
in e en ions. Depending on he con ex , he s uden s’age o implemen a ion de ails,
impac s ha e been gene ally modes o e en null. As a depa u e poin o he p esen
s udy, in He anz-Za zoso and Saba e -G ande (2018), we conduc ed a andomized
field expe imen aiming a imp o ing academic pe o mance in a di e en cou se
(In oduc o y mic oeconomics). In ha s udy, we ound ha mone a y incen i es
o e ed on he basis o sel -chosen goals we e e ec i e o significan ly inc ease
s uden s’g ades.
Second, we ocus on o e confidence bias. I has been gene ally obse ed ha a
pe son's subjec i e confidence in own pe o mance is g ea e han he ac ual
pe o mance, esul ing in he well-known o e confidence phenomenon.
7
Moo e and
Healy (2008) dis inguish among 3 ypes o o e confidence: o e -p ecision, a
endency o indi iduals o be excessi ely ce ain abou he accu acy o hei belie s:
o e es ima ion, a endency o subjec s o exagge a e hei absolu e ac ual achie e-
men o skill; and o e -placemen , which occu s when people pe cei e hei
pe o mance in a g oup as be e han i ac ually is.
8
Gi en he 2 ypes o e e ence
poin elici ed, we obse e 2 ypes o o e es ima ion: s uden s’o e es ima ion o hei
a ge ed academic pe o mance, defined as he di e ence be ween he g ade ob ained
and he goal chosen be o e he exam, and s uden s’o e es ima ion o hei ac ual
academic pe o mance, in e p e ed as he di e ence be ween he ac ual g ade and he
g ade o ecas ed immedia ely a e he exam.
P e ious esea ch has shown ha s uden s consis en ly o e es ima e hei
pe o mance on academic exams,
9
especially when hei g ades a e low. Specifically,
Hacke e al. (2008)find ha good s uden s a e usually mo e accu a e, wi h a
endency o unde es ima e, while bad s uden s usually o e es ima e hei pe o -
mance. Recen ly San os-Pin o and de la Rosa (2020) e iewed empi ical esea ch on
o e confidence and i s e ec on economic choices. Psychology e idence sugges s
ha o e confidence depends on pe sonal ai s and en i onmen al ac o s. Economic
6
In he field o educa ion, La ecchia e al. (2016) o e a su ey abou he e ec i eness o mone a y
incen i es in imp o ing academic pe o mance.
7
O e confidence has been called “ he mos significan o he cogni i e biases”by Kahneman (2011),
Baze man and Moo e (2012) e e o i as “a mo he o all biases”and Meloy e al. (2006) s a e ha i “is
one o he mos obus findings in he decision and judgmen li e a u e”.
8
In Hoezl and Rus ichini (2005) subjec s es ima e whe he hei skills a e be e han he median.
9
See, o example, Chen (2003) and Fos e e al. (2017), whe e i is concluded ha “e en a e a g ea deal
o p ac ice (wi h o e 10 exams), s uden s on a e age did no imp o e he accu acy o hei p edic ions”.
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
e idence shows ha o e confidence can pe sis e en unde mone a y incen i es and
eedback.
Thi d, we deal wi h he ela ionship be ween subjec s’cogni i e abili y and hei
o e confidence. Defining o e confidence as he di e ence be ween he guess and he
p opo ion o co ec answe s,
10
a posi i e co ela ion be ween cogni i e abili y and
confidence is ound in Wol e and G osch (1990)
11
and B uine de B uin e al.
(2007).
12
On he con a y, S ano ich and Wes (1998) epo ed a nega i e co ela ion
o di e en cogni i e abili y es s wi h subjec s’o e confidence. La e , Hoppe and
Kus e e (2011) ound ha subjec s wi h highe cogni i e eflec ion es (CRT) sco es
had a significan ly mo e p ecise sel -assessmen o hei pe o mance. Howe e , he
e ec s o cogni i e abili ies epo ed in ea lie s udies could depend on he ype o
o e confidence analyzed. In his ein, Du le (2016) showed ha , al hough
o e es ima ion
13
is no a ec ed by cogni i e abili ies (as measu ed by a CRT), he
CRT sco e was associa ed wi h a significan dec ease in o e -placemen and o e -
p ecision. Ne e heless, Bialek and Domu a (2018) showed ha he ela ionship
be ween cogni i e abili ies and o e confidence disappea ed a e add essing 2
c i iques: (1) he CRT does no measu e cogni i e abili ies bu , a he , he analy ic
cogni i e s yle, and (2) o e confidence and cogni i e abili y a e a ificially co ela ed
since he RPM es (which se ed as a basis o es ima ing o e confidence) is also a
measu e o cogni i e abili ies.
We a e in e es ed in es ing o he so‐called “Dunning–K uge e ec ”.
14
This
well-known cogni i e bias implies ha when people a e objec i ely unskilled in a
gi en a ea, hey end o la gely o e es ima e hei knowledge. As Dunning (2011)
s a es, his e ec has been obse ed in mul iple domains o skill
15
and knowledge,
including academics. The empi ical e idence a ailable on he ela ion be ween skill
and o e confidence is mixed, depending on he ype o o e confidence analyzed and
he me hods used o measu e he 2 a iables.
16
Specifically, when he same ask is
used o measu e o e confidence and skill, he empi ical e idence ob ained can be
dis o ed by ‘ eg ession o he mean’e ec s, ha is, indi iduals wi h highe skill a e
mo e likely o show less o e confidence. To a oid his e ec , we use di e en asks
o measu e o e confidence and skill, e alua ed h ough a cogni i e abili y es o by
means o he s uden s’academic eco d.
10
The p oblem wi h his o e confidence measu e, as Moo e and Healy (2008) sugges , is ha being
excessi ely su e o ha ing answe ed co ec ly eflec s bo h o e es ima ion o you pe o mance and
excessi e confidence in he p ecision o you knowledge.
11
Using e bal and ma hema ical Scholas ic ap i ude es (SAT) sco es o measu e cogni i e abili y and a
i ial quiz whe e subjec s epo hei confidence in ha ing answe ed co ec ly.
12
Using Ra en’s s anda d p og essi e ma ices o non e bal cogni i e abili y and o m G o he Nelson-
Denny eading comp ehension sub es o e bal abili y.
13
Defined as he di e ence be ween a subjec ’s es ima ed numbe o co ec es i ems in he Ra en
p og essi e ma ices (RPM) es and his/he ac ual pe o mance in he es .
14
K uge and Dunning (1999)find ha he mo e poo ly pa icipan s ac ually pe o med in es s o humo ,
g amma , and logic g ossly, he mo e hey o e es ima ed hei own pe o mance.
15
Pa k and San os-Pin o (2010)find suppo o he Dunning-K uge hypo hesis in bo h poke and chess
ou namen s.
16
See Feld e al. (2017).
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
In addi ion, we examine he ela ionship be ween pe cei ed skill, measu ed by
means o epo ed academic sel -confidence, and o e confidence. Following Sande
and Sande s (2009), we use he academic beha io al confidence scale
17
(ABC,
he ea e ) as a global measu e o pe cei ed academic confidence. Using a g oup es
o gene al men al abili y by Tandon (1971) and a sel -confidence in en o y by
Agniho i (1986), Dhall and Thuk al (2009) in es iga ed he ela ionship among
in elligence, sel -confidence, and academic achie emen in schools in Pakis an. They
ound ha in elligence was posi i ely co ela ed wi h bo h sel -confidence and
academic achie emen . Howe e , Saenz e al. (2019) ob ained ha a endance, s udy
habi s/p epa a ion, and/o p io pe o mance did no o e a s ong o obus
explana ion o s uden s’g ade p edic ions.
The es o he pape is s uc u ed as ollows: fi s , we in oduce he design o he
expe imen implemen ed and he hypo heses; second, we p esen he me hods used;
hi d, we analyze he empi ical e idence collec ed and p esen ou esul s; las , we
discuss hem.
3 Expe imen al design
A andomized field expe imen was conduc ed o analyze s uden s’o e confidence
using mone a y incen i es as he ea men a iable. In he beginning o he semes e ,
154 s uden s en olled in a mic oeconomics cou se a a Spanish uni e si y in 2018.
18
They we e o e ed he possibili y o se ing hei e e ence poin s well be o e
19
and
igh a e comple ion o he final exam. In he call, s uden s we e in o med ha hose
esponding a fi ma i ely would be immedia ely andomly assigned
20
o one o wo
g oups: 1 wi hou mone a y incen i es (NMI) and 1 wi h mone a y incen i es (MI).
Addi ionally, we no ified ha pa icipan s would ecei e in o ma ion abou hei
co esponding g oup be o e hey we e in i ed o choose a goal o hei final exam
g ade. F om he 138 olun ee s, 64 we e andomly assigned o he NMI condi ion
and 74 o he MI one. Howe e , only 42 (16 emales and 26 males) in he NMI
ea men and 58 (26 emales and 32 males) in he MI ea men decided o finally
ake he exam.
21
Fu he mo e, 16 s uden s no esponding a fi ma i ely o ou call
we e included in a baseline condi ion (non-pa icipan s g oup, NP g oup he ea e ) o
compa e non-pa icipan s’final g ades wi h hose co esponding o he ones ob ained
by pa icipa ing s uden s. In doing so, we can check o po en ial sel -selec ion bias.
Table 1summa izes he cha ac e is ics o he 3 g oups.
17
This scale encompasses cogni i e judgmen s ega ding s udy- ela ed beha io s, such as confidence in
independen s udy, a aining g ades, discussing cou se ma e ial and ques ions, and academic engagemen
h ough a ending o mal sessions.
18
The expe imen was app o ed in he amewo k o an educa ional inno a i e p ojec p omo ed by he
uni e si y and app o ed by he acul y o law and economics.
19
A e a mid e m exam (3 mon hs be o e he final exam), sel -chosen goals we e elici ed. Mo eo e ,
al hough we allowed hei e ision un il 1 day be o e examina ion, no s uden submi ed a new goal a e
hei ini ial decisions. The mid e m (final) exam ep esen ed 30% (70%) o he cou se g ade.
20
A pu e andom d aw using a die was used o alloca e subjec s indi idually in o g oups.
21
A Mann–Whi ney es shows no gende di e ences be ween ea men s (p alue: 0.5029).
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …

In he call, s uden s we e ins uc ed ha , i assigned o he MI g oup, hei
mone a y ewa d (R) would depend on he chosen e e ence poin (RP) and he g ade
(GR) hey ob ained in he exam, acco ding o he ollowing sco ing ule:
R¼RP2i GR ¼RP;R¼0i GR RP
This is a mo e conse a i e es o o e confidence bias han a g ade o ecas
ques ion because he ewa d depends on a chosen e e ence poin ins ead o he
ob ained g ade. This is so because, like in Pa k and San os-Pin o (2010),
22
a isk
neu al playe who o e es ima es he pe o mance in a gi en amoun incu s in a
la ge loss (0 ea nings and loss equal o he squa e o he RP) han i she
unde es ima es i in he same quan i y (loss equal o he squa e o he di e ence
be ween GR and RP). Thus, he op imal e e ence poin o a isk neu al playe
should be smalle han his op imal g ade o ecas . To coun e balance he ab up all
in ea nings om a g ade below he e e ence poin , he quad a ic sco ing ule chosen
he e gi es a good incen i e o choosing a highe e e ence poin because ea nings
inc ease ma ginally mo e o highe (success ul) be s.
Mo eo e , s uden s we e ins uc ed ha only 1 o he 2 elici ed e e ence poin s
(pa icipan s’sel -chosen goal o pos -dic ion), chosen a andom, would be used o
de e mine hei ewa ds. The ac ual a e age paymen ecei ed om success ul
subjec s in he expe imen was €16 om a maximum po en ial ewa d o €49 (gi en
ha he op sco e in he final exam is 7 poin s). To dis inguish be ween he 2 ypes o
o e confidence, we define s uden s’po en ial o e confidence (POC) as he sel -
chosen goal minus he g ade ob ained, and s uden s’ac ual o e confidence (AOC) as
he di e ence be ween he pos -dic ion and he ac ual g ade.
In addi ion, pa icipan s’cogni i e abili y was measu ed by means o he abs ac
easoning pa o he di e en ial ap i ude es (DAT-AR o PCA, Benne e al.,
1974). Mo eo e , we elici ed sco es on he ABC scale.
23
The esea ch by Nicholson
e al. (2013) sugges ed ha unde g adua es’confidence in hei abili y is ela ed o
academic pe o mance. Specifically, his s udy showed ha s uden s who, a he
beginning o he semes e , we e confiden abou hei g ades also pe o m be e in
Table 1 Summa y o g oups
G oups Numbe o
subjec s
Paymen o e ed in
he call
Willingness o
pa icipa e
Randomiza ion Paymen
used
NP 16 No paymen /money No No –
NMI 42 No paymen /money Yes Yes No money
MI 58 No paymen /money Yes Yes Real
money
22
They use a simila quad a ic sco ing ule as well as be s o incen i ize poke and chess playe s’
o ecas s o ela i e pe o mance in ou namen s. The exam g ade pe o mance s udied he e esembles
mo e he chess a he han he poke ea men , because s uden s ha e a a he good idea o hei abili ies
and would no be expec ed o ea hei exam g ades as pu ely andom.
23
See Sande and Sande s (2009).
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
hei end-o -semes e ma ks. Gi en he ype o cou se conside ed in his s udy, we a e
especially in e es ed in wo ac o s o he ABC scale: g ades and s udy belie s.
Using he a o emen ioned expe imen al design, we p opose ou hypo heses.
Because mone a y incen i es induce indi iduals’mo e hough ul guesses, hey
should help o b ing goals and expec a ions close o ac ual academic pe o mance. In
consequence,
Hypo hesis 1 (H1)
In oducing mone a y incen i es o elici s uden s’ e e ence poin s, should so en
bo h po en ial and ac ual o e confidence by imp o ing guesses.
In addi ion, i is expec ed ha mone a y incen i es will lead o mo e e o ,
p oducing a highe academic pe o mance. Hence,
Hypo hesis 2 (H2)
Implemen a ion o mone a y incen i es will inc ease ac ual g ades.
Mo eo e , assuming ha bo h cogni i e abili y and academic eco d a e good
p edic o s o academic aspi a ion, pe o mance and lowe o e confidence, we
hypo hesize ha :
Hypo hesis 3 (H3)
S uden s wi h highe po en ial and ac ual skills will choose highe goals, hey will
achie e a be e academic pe o mance and hey will show a lowe le el o
o e confidence.
Finally, since sel - epo ed s udying and g ade confidence should be ela ed o
s uden s’aspi a ions,
Hypo hesis 4 (H4)
S uden s sel - epo ing a highe academic confidence should choose highe goals.
Summing up, by con olling o po en ial d i ing ac o s, such as skill and
epo ed academic sel -confidence, ou expe imen al design aims a analyzing
whe he bo h o e confidence and Dunning–K uge bias can be mi iga ed using
mone a y incen i es o elici s uden s’ e e ence poin s.
4 Me hods
In his sec ion, we o e de ailed in o ma ion on he measu es used o elici s uden s’
cogni i e abili ies and sel - epo ed academic confidence, espec i ely.
1. The abs ac easoning pa o he di e en ial ap i ude es o pe sonnel and
ca ee assessmen . The abs ac easoning (AR) scale o he DAT used in his
expe imen is included in he Spanish adap a ion o DAT-5 by he publishe TEA
(Co de o &Co al, 2006). This es is used as a non- e bal measu e o easoning
abili y and in ol es he capaci y o hink logically and o pe cei e ela ionships
in figu es made up o abs ac pa e ns. I is conside ed as a ma ke o fluid
in elligence (Colom e al., 2007) and he componen o in elligence mos ela ed
o gene al in elligence o g ac o (McG ew, 2009). The ad an age o his es is
ha i can be adminis e ed quickly, con aining 40 mul iple-choice i ems wi hin a
20-min ime limi .
2. The academic beha io al confidence scale (Sande &Sande s, 2009). The ABC
scale used in his esea ch was he 24-s a emen e sion. These s a emen s elici
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
he s uden ’s expec a ion o achie ing good g ades in assessmen s (g ades),
engaging in independen s udy (s udying), a ending lec u es, u o ials and o he
augh sessions (a endance), and discussing ma e ial wi h u o s, lec u e s, and
pee s ( e balizing). Howe e , all analyses p esen ed in his pape we e compu ed
only o 2 ABC subscales: g ades and s udying. In Sande e al. (2011), he ABC
scale shows c oss-cul u al alidi y when ansla ed in o Spanish and adminis e ed
o o e 2 housand Spanish psychology s uden s.
5 Da a analysis
5.1 Sample sel -selec ion
Gi en ha ou design equi es s uden s’willingness o pa icipa e in he expe imen ,
po en ial sel -selec ion p oblems do no a ec di e ences be ween MI and NMI.
Ne e heless, he baseline g oup allows us o es o sel -selec ion bias by compa ing
p io mid e m g ades o pa icipa ing and non-pa icipa ing subjec s. A Mann–
Whi ney es shows ha di e ences be ween pa icipan and non-pa icipan g oups
a e no s a is ically significan (p alue: 0.1517).
5.2 Desc ip i e s a is ics and es s
Table 2shows he sample spli in o NMI and MI, and p esen s desc ip i e s a is ics
o : no malized da a o a scale om 0 o 10 co esponding o (1) subjec s’sel -chosen
goals, (2) pos -dic ions, (3) g ades and (4) POC and AOC. Mo eo e , we display
addi ional desc ip i e s a is ics co esponding o: (1) sco e in he DAT-AR es , (2)
Table 2 Desc ip i e s a is ics and g oup compa isons o sel -chosen goals, pos -dic ions, g ades, o e -
confidence, DAT-AR sco e, s udying and g ades subscales o he ABC scale, and academic eco d
N
NMI
N
MI
Mean
NMI
Mean
MI
S.D
NMI
S.D
I
M–W es / T es
p alue
nex-pos
powe
Sel -chosen
goal
42 58 6.01 5.83 0.98 0.99 0.4348 942
Pos -dic ion 42 58 5.34 5.32 1.58 1.23 0.7625 157,344
G ade 42 58 4.04 5.26 2.23 2.41 0.0116**
POC 42 58 1.97 0.58 2.16 2.40 0.0037***
AOC 42 58 1.30 0.06 2.06 2.32 0.0072***
DAT-AR sco e 42 58 25.19 22.74 7.62 7.71 0.1186 308
S udying
confidence
42 58 14.31 15.10 2.87 2.16 0.1539 326
G ades
confidence
42 58 21.62 22.03 3.81 4.02 0.5320 2866
Academic
eco d
42 58 6.40 6.40 0.66 0.49 0.4402 –
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
sco es in he g ades and s udying subscales o he ABC scale, and (3) academic
eco d. Addi ionally, we p esen p alues om a es o a Mann–Whi ney (M–W)
es compa ing
24
NMI and MI condi ions o all hese a iables. Mo eo e , o check
whe he he lack o significance o some di e ences was due o a low s a is ical
powe , we conduc an ex-pos powe analysis using S a a wi h powe se a 0.80 and
p obabili y a 0.05. The las column o Table 2shows he minimum sample size o
find s a is ically significan di e ences.
We obse e ha al hough sel -chosen goals and pos -dic ions a e simila in he
NMI and he MI g oups, bo h ypes o o e confidence a e significan ly highe when
subjec s’ e e ence poin s a e elici ed wi hou incen i es (NMI g oup). Specifically, a
POC o almos 2 poin s is educed o a qua e when subjec s’sel -chosen goals a e
elici ed using money. In he same manne , an AOC o 1.3 poin s disappea s when
subjec s’pos -dic ions a e ob ained unde mone a y incen i es. I is wo h
men ioning ha his educ ion o he s uden s’o e confidence is no caused by a
di e ence in hei expec a ions bu , a he , by an imp o emen in hei pe o mance.
Mo eo e , his educ ion in bo h POC and AOC is no influenced by cogni i e abili y
o academic confidence/ eco ds, since hese a iables do no p esen significan
di e ences ac oss g oups.
In Fig. 1, means a e p esen ed and s a is ical di e ences a e es ed h ough a
Wilcoxon es . Specifically, in he fi s ow, we display means o sel -chosen goals,
pos -dic ions, and g ades, spli be ween NMI and MI.
Fo bo h g oups, we ob ain ha he median o s uden s’sel -chosen goals is
significan ly highe han he median o hei pos -dic ions. Howe e , only NMI
subjec s ob ain a median g ade significan ly lowe han hei median pos -dic ion,
since MI subjec s pos -dic ion hei g ade accu a ely. The 2nd ow o Fig. 1p esen s
he mean alues o POC and AOC o bo h g oups o subjec s, showing ha eal
mone a y incen i es significan ly educe bo h POC and AOC medians, he la e
being close o 0.
Figu e 2displays he confidence measu ed using sel -chosen goals and pos -
dic ions agains he g ade ob ained in he mid e m exams. The 45 ° line p o ides a
benchma k, gi en ha poin s abo e he line would ep esen o e confidence whe eas
poin s below he line would ep esen unde -confidence. The dashed line is he
minimum g ade equi ed o pass an exam. In he igh panel o his figu e, we can
obse e ha mos o he NMI subjec s show bo h POC and AOC. Thus, his igh
panel ep oduces he e ec o o e confidence in gene al e ms. This pa e n is no
obse ed o MI subjec s (le panel). In ac , hey show o e confidence o low
g ades and unde -confidence o high g ades, as can be expec ed when a eg ession o
he mean e ec is p esen .
Now, we analyze he ela ionship be ween subjec s’confidence and cogni i e
abili y. Figu e 3displays bo h po en ial and ac ual confidence o subjec s included in
bo h he NMI and he MI g oup agains cogni i e abili y. Fo bo h g oups, NMI and
MI subjec s, Fig. 3shows no pa e n ela ing confidence and cogni i e abili y.
25
24
We use es s o compa isons be ween no mally dis ibu ed a iables (g ade, POC and AOC, and DAT-
AR sco e) and he M–W es o compa isons be ween he emaining (non-no mal) a iables.
25
Spea man's coe ficien s show a non-significan co ela ion.
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
es ablishing causal ela ionships be ween mone a y incen i es and academic
pe o mance.
Al hough his pape e eals he posi i e e ec o mone a y incen i es in academic
pe o mance, policymake s migh be conce ned by (1) c owding-ou e ec s (Gneezy
e al., 2011) and (2) he financial esou ces needed. Rega ding he a gumen ha
mone a y incen i es could c owd ou s uden s’in insic mo i a ions, Lis e al.
(2018) only ound a limi ed empo a y e ec , ob aining ha one yea la e non-
incen i ized es s we e no nega i ely a ec ed. Wi h espec o he second conce n,
He anz-Za zoso and Saba e -G ande (2018) showed ha lowe cos -in ensi e
mechanisms as a ank-o de ou namen scheme can be as e ec i e as a piece- a e
paymen mechanism like he one adop ed he e.
Fu he esea ch is needed o explo e ac o s like pe sonali y ai s o be e explain
subjec s’o e confidence bias, and new ools ein o cing mone a y incen i es o
so en his o e confidence, like expe ience and eedback on p e ious academic asks.
7 Appendix
7.1 Expe imen al ins uc ions ( ansla ed om Spanish)
7.1.1 Call ins uc ions
The LEE Resea ch Team o he Uni e si y Jaume I is conduc ing a s udy o e alua e
which ac o s con ibu e o good pe o mance on his cou se. The eam will use you
esponses, g ades om his cou se and you academic eco ds i you consen o
pa icipa e. All he in o ma ion will be anonymously associa ed wi h he findings o
his esea ch. You ha e he igh o wi hd aw om he s udy a any ime du ing he
semes e . I you wi hd aw he e will be no consequences o you; you academic
s anding and eco d will no be a ec ed.
I you consen o pa icipa e in his s udy you will be immedia ely andomly
assigned o one o wo g oups: g oup 1 o g oup 2. I you ha e been selec ed in g oup
1 you will be paid by you decisions bu in he case o being assigned o g oup 2 you
will no be ewa ded by hem. You will ecei e in o ma ion coming soon by email
abou you co esponding g oup, be o e you ha e o make any decision. Once you
ha e been in o med, you will ha e o se a goal o you final exam g ade in his
cou se. Remembe ha he final exam is wo h 70% o you final cou se g ade (7
poin s is he maximum g ade o be achie ed). You will be allowed o e ise you goal
un il one day be o e examina ion. All communica ions should occu o e email.
Mo eo e , you will be asked o guess he g ade you hink you will ge in he final
exam immedia ely a e being comple ed. Only one o he wo decisions, chosen a
andom, will be used o de e mine you ewa d i you ha e been andomly selec ed in
g oup 1. In his case, you ewa d, in eu os will be equal o:
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.

R¼Guess2i G ade Guess
In addi ion, i you ha e decla ed you willingness o pa icipa e, you will be asked
o pe o m wo addi ional asks (a 20-min abs ac easoning es and and a sho
ques ion es ).
Please espond o his mail i you consen o pa icipa e in his s udy.
7.1.2 Ins uc ions o g oup 1 pa icipan s
You ha e been andomly selec ed in g oup 1. Thus, you decisions can be mone a y
ewa ded. The fi s decision you need o make is choosing a goal o you final
cou se g ade ( emembe ha you communica ion mus be by email and he goal can
be e ised un il one day be o e examina ion). Please, hink ca e ully be o e se ing
you goal.
Remembe ha he second decision you mus ake is o guess he g ade you hink
you will ge in he final exam, immedia ely a e being comple ed (you will be asked
o w i e you guess a he final page o he exam). Only one o he wo decisions,
chosen a andom, will be used o de e mine you ewa d. Fo anspa ency, we will
use one numbe o he Lo e ía Nacional a fle o May 26, 2018 o each class g oup
(A, B, C, D, E and F).
–G oup A: hi d numbe o he fi s p ize
–G oup B: o h numbe o he fi s p ize
–G oup C: fi h numbe o he fi s p ize
–G oup D: fi s numbe o he second p ize
–G oup E: second numbe o he second p ize
–G oup F: fi s numbe o he second p ize
Fo each cou se g oup, we will use you fi s decision o ewa d you in case ha
he a fle co esponding numbe is 1, 2, 3 o 4, and we will adop you second
decision o emune a e you i he a fle numbe is 5, 6, 7, 8 o 9.
Remembe ha , in bo h decisions, you ha e o guess you g ade o e 7 and i you
equal o exceed you guess, you will ecei ed a mone a y payo in eu os acco ding
o he ollowing unc ion:
R¼Guess2i G ade Guess
7.1.3 Ins uc ions o g oup 2 pa icipan s
You ha e been andomly selec ed in g oup 2. Thus, you decisions will no be
mone a y ewa ded. The fi s decision you need o make is choosing a goal o you
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
final cou se g ade ( emembe ha you goal can be e ised un il one day be o e
examina ion). The second decision you mus ake is o guess he g ade you hink you
will ge in he final exam immedia ely a e being comple ed.
8 Logi ans o ma ion
Since e e ence poin s and g ades a e limi ed a iables aking no malized alues
be ween 0 and 10, he esul s ob ained by OLS can su e om he e oskedas ici y
which in alida es s a is ical in e ence. To a oid his sho coming, on he one hand,
he s anda d e o s epo ed in OLS eg essions a e obus o he p esence o
he e oskedas ici y. On he o he hand, o check i he esul s ob ained a e obus , we
pe o m a logi ans o ma ion o ou dependen a iables based on e e ence poin s
and g ades. The logi ans o ma ion o sel -chosen goals (SCG), pos -dic ions
(POST), g ades (G), po en ial o e confidence (POC) and ac ual o e confidence
(AOC) a e gi en by:
SCGi¼ln SCGi
10 SCGi

Table 3 OLS eg essions o sel -chosen goals and pos -dic ions elici ed in he final exam spli ing he
sample be ween mone a ily incen i ized and non-mone a ily incen i ized subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals all
subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals MI
subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals NMI
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions all
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions MI
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions
NMI
subjec s
MI –0.0782
(0.190)
–0.0681
(0.269)
Cogni i e
abili y
0.0314**
(0.0144)
0.0384**
(0.0183)
0.0141
(0.0234)
–0.0105
(0.0191)
0.00393
(0.0223)
–0.0425
(0.0364)
Academic
eco d
0.477***
(0.168)
0.217 (0.255) 0.732***
(0.195)
0.676**
(0.271)
0.549
(0.402)
0.801**
(0.386)
G ades
confidence
0.0306
(0.0278)
0.0235
(0.0308)
0.0411
(0.0537)
–0.00464
(0.0359)
–0.0325
(0.0372)
0.0642
(0.0682)
S udying
confidence
–0.0297
(0.0460)
0.0340
(0.0782)
–0.0886
(0.0563)
0.0669
(0.0741)
0.123
(0.0890)
–0.0138
(0.0947)
Gende –0.194
(0.205)
–0.299
(0.275)
–0.0843
(0.307)
–0.369
(0.279)
–0.347
(0.334)
–0.526
(0.560)
Cons an 2.088 (1.333) 2.675 (1.928) 1.382 (1.603) 0.631
(1.896)
0.739
(2.340)
0.299
(2.618)
N100 58 42 100 58 42
R-squa ed 0.233 0.184 0.380 0.112 0.099 0.167
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
Table 4 OLS eg ession o s uden s’g ades
G ades all subjec s G ades MI subjec s G ades NMI subjec s
MI 1.079*** (0.376)
Cogni i e abili y 0.0198 (0.0258) –0.0103 (0.0330) 0.0842** (0.0361)
Academic eco d 1.673*** (0.404) 2.179*** (0.555) 0.988* (0.492)
G ades confidence –0.0244 (0.0565) –0.0238 (0.0631) –0.126 (0.0931)
S udying confidence 0.295*** (0.0977) 0.268* (0.147) 0.401*** (0.144)
Gende –0.264 (0.423) –0.942 (0.603) 0.976** (0.479)
Sel -chosen goal 0.0661 (0.247) 0.0672 (0.367) 0.322 (0.316)
Pos -dic ion 0.359*** (0.126) 0.292 (0.247) 0.519*** (0.135)
Cons an –14.15*** (2.527) –13.50*** (3.721) –12.50*** (3.330)
Obse a ions 100 58 42
R-squa ed 0.439 0.386 0.581
The eg ession is spli in o mone a ily incen i ized and non-mone a ily incen i ized subjec s. Robus
s anda d e o s in pa en heses
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table 5 OLS eg essions o POC and AOC spli ing he sample in o mone a ily incen i ized and non-
mone a ily incen i ized subjec s
POC POC MI
subjec s
POC NMI
subjec s
AOC AOC MI
subjec s
AOC NMI
subjec s
MI –1.122***
(0.399)
–1.116***
(0.406)
Cogni i e
abili y
0.0127
(0.0287)
0.0448
(0.0353)
–0.0527
(0.0392)
–0.0286
(0.0293)
0.0115
(0.0360)
–0.109***
(0.0372)
Academic
eco d
–1.471***
(0.436)
–2.138***
(0.595)
–0.908
(0.578)
–1.272***
(0.426)
–1.805***
(0.642)
–0.839*
(0.477)
G ades
confidence
0.0558
(0.0641)
0.0557
(0.0698)
0.121
(0.109)
0.0196
(0.0667)
–0.00217
(0.0712)
0.144
(0.0861)
S udying
confidence
–0.348***
(0.107)
–0.273*
(0.159)
–0.454***
(0.137)
–0.250**
(0.114)
–0.180
(0.161)
–0.379**
(0.143)
Gende 0.220
(0.463)
0.767
(0.680)
–0.762
(0.569)
0.0402
(0.456)
0.710
(0.648)
–1.206**
(0.545)
Cons an 15.88***
(2.934)
15.79***
(3.822)
13.29***
(3.847)
14.41***
(2.812)
13.81***
(4.220)
12.20***
(3.193)
Obse a ions 99 57 42 99 57 42
R-squa ed 0.303 0.269 0.360 0.253 0.218 0.378
Robus S anda d e o s in pa en heses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
Table 6 OLS eg essions o sel -chosen goals and pos -dic ions elici ed in he final exam spli ing he
sample be ween mone a ily incen i ized and non-mone a ily incen i ized subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals all
subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals MI
subjec s
Sel -chosen
goals NMI
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions all
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions MI
subjec s
Pos -
dic ions
NMI
subjec s
MI –0.0262
(0.0906)
–0.0721
(0.118)
Cogni i e
Abili y
0.0147**
(0.00665)
0.0182**
(0.00864)
0.00607
(0.0105)
1.89e–05
(0.00757)
0.00205
(0.00986)
–0.00544
(0.0121)
Academic
Reco d
0.231***
(0.0833)
0.0857
(0.111)
0.372***
(0.0964)
0.302**
(0.124)
0.249
(0.180)
0.350*
(0.174)
G ades
Confidence
0.0117
(0.0121)
0.0104
(0.0134)
0.0143
(0.0237)
–0.00408
(0.0152)
–0.0127
(0.0161)
0.00962
(0.0326)
S udying
Confidence
–0.0141
(0.0214)
0.00929
(0.0379)
–0.0366
(0.0252)
0.0110
(0.0274)
0.0526
(0.0390)
–0.0275
(0.0352)
Gende –0.0882
(0.0904)
–0.137
(0.120)
–0.0356
(0.133)
–0.146
(0.128)
–0.156
(0.144)
–0.165
(0.271)
Cons an –1.404**
(0.625)
–0.908
(0.847)
–1.869**
(0.757)
–1.658**
(0.743)
–1.940*
(1.045)
–1.633
(0.982)
N100 58 42 99 58 41
R-squa ed 0.233 0.171 0.417 0.122 0.103 0.179
Logi ans o ma ion implemen ed in he dependen a iables
S anda d e o s in pa en heses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table 7 OLS eg ession o s uden s’g ades. The eg ession is spli in o mone a ily incen i ized and non-
mone a ily incen i ized subjec s
G ades all subjec s G ades MI subjec s G ades NMI subjec s
MI 0.503*** (0.188)
Cogni i e abili y 0.0115 (0.0130) –0.00439 (0.0162) 0.0418** (0.0197)
Academic eco d 0.792*** (0.210) 0.925*** (0.284) 0.642* (0.322)
G ades confidence –0.0182 (0.0286) –0.00708 (0.0291) –0.0854* (0.0500)
S udying confidence 0.140*** (0.0488) 0.112 (0.0734) 0.209** (0.0770)
Gende –0.0155 (0.207) –0.367 (0.296) 0.626** (0.267)
Sel -chosen goal 0.0838 (0.122) 0.106 (0.176) 0.125 (0.184)
Pos -dic ion 0.138* (0.0708) 0.103 (0.123) 0.234*** (0.0764)
Cons an –9.197*** (1.409) –8.267*** (1.908) –9.049*** (1.998)
Obse a ions 97 56 41
R-squa ed 0.379 0.316 0.521
S anda d e o s in pa en heses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Logi ans o ma ion implemen ed in he
dependen a iables
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
POSTi¼ln POSTi
10 POSTi

Gi¼ln Gi
10 Gi

POCi¼ln POCi
10 POCi

AOCi¼ln AOCi
10 AOCi

Once he dependen a iables ha e been ans o med, we pe o med OLS
eg essions. Tables 3,4and 5p esen he esul s in a simila way ha Tables 67and
8, showing ha p e ious esul s a e obus .
Funding Open Access unding p o ided hanks o he CRUE-CSIC ag eemen wi h Sp inge Na u e. This
wo k has been suppo ed by he Spanish Minis e io de Ciencia, Inno ación y Uni e sidades (RTI2018-
096927-B-100), Gene ali a Valenciana (AICO/2018/036), Uni e si a Jaume I (UJI-B2018-76/77), and
Minis e io de Educación Cul u a y Depo e (FPU14/02966). N Geo gan zis ecei ed suppo by he
Agence Na ionale de la Reche che (g an ANR-18-CE26-0018).
A ailabili y o da a and ma e ial Da a a e a ailable and p o ided as supplemen a y in o ma ion.
Table 8 OLS eg essions o POC and AOC spli ing he sample in o mone a ily incen i ized and non-
mone a ily incen i ized subjec s
POC POC MI
subjec s
POC NMI
subjec s
AOC AOC MI
subjec s
AOC NMI
subjec s
MI –0.247***
(0.0856)
–0.237***
(0.0843)
Cogni i e
abili y
0.00361
(0.00619)
0.0103
(0.00737)
–0.0101
(0.00923)
–0.00576
(0.00600)
–(0.00728) –0.0230***
(0.00793)
Academic
eco d
–0.321***
(0.0925)
–0.453***
(0.125)
–0.209
(0.126)
–0.270***
(0.0888)
–0.377***
(0.134)
–0.181*
(0.101)
G ades
confidence
0.0113
(0.0134)
0.0110
(0.0140)
0.0249
(0.0243)
0.00423
(0.0137)
–0.000607
(0.0143)
0.0310
(0.0184)
S udying
confidence
–0.0756***
(0.0232)
–0.0539
(0.0333)
–0.102***
(0.0301)
–0.0531**
(0.0237)
–0.0364
(0.0330)
–0.0826**
(0.0307)
Gende 0.0350
(0.0980)
0.157
(0.142)
–0.178
(0.122)
0.00201
(0.0952)
0.144
(0.134)
–0.259**
(0.116)
Cons an 3.460***
(0.641)
3.283***
(0.798)
3.009***
(0.864)
3.052***
(0.592)
2.865***
(0.874)
2.627***
(0.684)
Obse a ions 99 57 42 99 57 42
R-squa ed 0.309 0.267 0.367 0.257 0.218 0.382
Robus s anda d e o s in pa en heses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Logi ans o ma ion implemen ed
in he dependen a iables
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …

Code a ailabili y No applicable.
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es The i s , second and hi d unding ins i u ions p o ided suppo o expe imen al
pa icipan ewa ds, whe eas he ou h p o ided sala ies o NH-Z, espec i ely. None o he unde s ha e
any addi ional ole in he s udy design, da a collec ion and analysis, decision o publish, o p epa a ion o
he manusc ip . NG is a ilia ed wi h a comme cial company, Bu gundy School o Business, which has
only p o ided sala y o his speci ic au ho and has no had any o he in ol emen in he unding, he
design, he scope o he publica ion p ocess o his esea ch. Fu he mo e, his comme cial a ilia ion does
no al e ou adhe ence o Theo y and Decision policies on sha ing da a and ma e ials. Finally, no com-
pe ing in e es s exis which could in e e e wi h, o could easonably be pe cei ed as in e e ing wi h, he
ull and objec i e p esen a ion, pee e iew, edi o ial decision-making, o publica ion o ou esea ch
epo ed in his a icle submi ed o one o he jou nals.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as
you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e
Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle's C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o
he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle's C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is
no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission
di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Re e ences
Agniho i, R. (1986). Manual o Agniho i’s sel confidence in en o y (ASCI). Be lin: Na ional
Psychological Co po a ion Ed.
Allen, E. J., Dechow, P. M., Pope, D. G., &Wu, G. (2016). Re e ence-dependen p e e ences: E idence
om ma a hon unne s. Managemen Science, 63(6), 1657–1672. h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/mnsc.2015.
2417
Ande son, A., &G een, E. A. (2018). Pe sonal bes s as e e ence poin s. P oceedings o he Na ional
Academy o Sciences o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica, 115(8), 1772–1776. h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/
pnas.1706530115
And ews, K., Swanson, J., &Kugle , P. (2007). G ade Expec a ions. Jou nal o Economoics &Economic
Educa ion Resea ch, 8(2), 3–18.
A ms ong, M. J. (2013). A p elimina y s udy o g ade o ecas ing by s uden s. Decision Science Jou nal
o Inno a i e Educa ion, 11(2), 193–210. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/dsji.12003
Baze man, M. H., &Moo e, D. A. (2012). Judgmen in manage ial decision making. John Wiley &Sons.
Benjamin, D. J., B own, S. A., &Shapi o, J. M. (2013). Who is “beha io al”? cogni i e abili y and
anomalous p e e ences. Jou nal o he Eu opean Economic Associa ion, 11(6), 1231–1255. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/jeea.12055
Benne , G. K., Seasho e, H. G., &Wesman, A. G. (1974). Manual o he di e en ial ap i ude es s.
Psychological Co po a ion Ed.
Białek, M., &Domu a , A. (2018). Cogni i e abili ies, analy ic cogni i e s yle and o e confidence: A
commen a y on Du le (2016). Bulle in o Economic Resea ch, 70(1), 119–125. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/boe .12117
B ookins, P., Goe g, S., &Kube, S. (2017). Sel -chosen goals, incen i es, and e o . Mimeo.
B uine de B uin, W. B., Pa ke , A. M., &Fischho , B. (2007). Indi idual di e ences in adul decision-
making compe ence. Jou nal o Pe sonali y Social Psychology, 92, 342–350. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/
0022-3514.92.5.938
Bu ns, D. J. (2007). An examina ion o he accu acy o s uden s’expec ed g ades. Academy o Educa ional
Leade sh Jou nal, 11(3), 45–58.
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
Campi elli, G., &Labolli a, M. (2010). Co ela ions o cogni i e eflec ion wi h judgmen s and choices.
Judgmen and Decision Making, 5(3), 182–191.
Caplan, D., Mo enson, K. G., &Les e , M. (2018). Can incen i es mi iga e s uden o e confidence a
g ade o ecas s? Accoun ing Educa ion, 27(1), 27–47. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09639284.2017.
1361850
Chen, P. P. (2003). Explo ing he accu acy and p edic abili y o he sel -e ficacy belie s o se en h-g ade
ma hema ics s uden s. Lea ning Indi dual Di e ences, 14(1), 77–90. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.
LINDIF.2003.08.003
Cla k, D., Gill, D., P owse, V., &Rush, M. (2020). Using goals o mo i a e college s uden s: Theo y and
e idence om field expe imen s. Re iew o Economics and S a is ics, 102(4), 648–663. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1162/ es _a_00864
Co gne , B., Gómez-Cokely, E. T., &Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cogni i e abili ies and supe io decision
making unde isk: A p o ocol analysis and p ocess model e alua ion. Judgmen and Decision
Making, 4(1), 20–33.
Colom, R., Esco ial, S., Shih, P. C., &P i ado, J. (2007). Fluid in elligence, memo y span, and
empe amen di ficul ies p edic academic pe o mance o young adolescen s. Pe sonali y and
Indi idual Di e ences, 42(8), 1503–1514. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.PAID.2006.10.023
Co de o, A., &Co al, S. (2006). DAT - 5 es s de ap i udes di e enciales. TEA Ediciones Ed.
Co gne , B., Gómez-Miñamb es, J., &He nán-González, R. (2015). Goal se ing and mone a y incen i es:
When la ge s akes a e no enough. Managemen Science, 61(12), 2926–2944. h ps://doi.o g/10.1287/
mnsc.2014.2068
C oson, R. (2005). The Me hod o Expe imen al Economics. In e na ional Nego ia ion, 10(1), 131–148.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1163/1571806054741100
Dal on, P. S., Jimenez, V. H. G., &Noussai , C. (2015). Paying wi h sel -chosen goals: Incen i es and
gende di e ences. Discussion Pape No 2015-021, Cen e o Economic Resea ch. h ps://
EconPape s. epec.o g/RePEc: iu: iucen:35daceab-34bc-4bd2-b330-ec03da6b06b7
Diecidue, E., & an de Ven, J. (2008). Aspi a ion le el, P obabili y o Success and Failu e, and Expec ed
U ili y. In e na ional Economic Re iew, 49(2), 683–700. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2008.
00494.x
Dhall, S., &Thuk al, P. (2009). In elligence as Rela ed o Sel -confidence and Academic Achie emen o
School S uden s. Jou nal o All India Associa ion Educa ion Resea ch, 21(2), 80–83.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Hu man, D., &Sunde, U. (2010). A e isk a e sion and impa ience ela ed o
cogni i e abili y? Ame ican Economic Re iew, 100(3), 1238–1260. h ps://doi.o g/10.1257/ae .100.3.
1238
Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–K uge e ec : On being igno an o one’s own igno ance. Ad ances in
Expe imen al Social Psychology, 44, 247–296. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
Du le, K. (2016). Cogni i e skills and confidence: In e ela ions wi h o e es ima ion, o e placemen and
o e p ecision. Bulle in o Economic Resea ch, 68(S1), 42–55. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/boe .12069
Eh linge , J., Johnson, K., Banne , M., Dunning, D., &K uge , J. (2008). Why he unskilled a e unawa e:
Fu he explo a ions o (absen ) sel -insigh among he incompe en . O ganiza ional Beha io and
Human Decision P ocesses, 105(1), 98–121. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
Falk, A., &Knell, M. (2004). Choosing he joneses: endogenous goals and e e ence s anda ds.
Scandina ian Jou nal o Economics, 106(3), 417–435. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.
00370.x
Feld, J., Saue mann, J., &de G ip, A. (2017). Es ima ing he ela ionship be ween skill and
o e confidence. Jou nal o Beha io al Expe imen al Economics, 68,18–24. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1016/J.SOCEC.2017.03.002
Fos e , N. L., Was, C. A., Dunlosky, J., &Isaacson, R. M. (2017). E en a e hi een class exams, s uden s
a e s ill o e confiden : The ole o memo y o pas exam pe o mance in s uden p edic ions.
Me acogni ion Lea n, 12(1), 1–19. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11409-016-9158-6
F ede ick, S. (2005). Cogni i e eflec ion and decision making. Jou nal o Economic Pe spec i e, 19(4),
25–42. h ps://doi.o g/10.1257/089533005775196732
F ye , J. W., &Ellio , A. J. (2008). Sel - egula ion o achie emen goal pu sui , mo i a ion and sel -
egula ed lea ning. Mo i a ion and sel - egula ed lea ning: Theo y, esea ch, and applica ions (p.
416). Law ence E lbaum Associa es.
Glenbe g, A. M., &Eps ein, W. (1987). Inexpe calib a ion o comp ehension. Memo y &Cogni ion, 15
(1), 84–93. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03197714
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …
Gneezy, U., Meie , S., &Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incen i es (don’ ) wo k o modi y beha io .
Jou nal o Economic Pe spec i e, 25(4), 191–210. h ps://doi.o g/10.1257/JEP.25.4.191
Gómez-Miñamb es, J. (2012). Mo i a ion h ough goal se ing. Jou nal o Economic Psychology, 33(6),
1223–1239. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.010
G imes, P. W. (2002). The o e confiden p inciples o economics s uden : An examina ion o a
me acogni i e skill. The Jou nal Economic Educa ion, 33(1), 15–30.
Gu ie ez, A. P., &Sch aw, G. (2015). E ec s o s a egy aining and incen i es on s uden s’pe o mance,
confidence, and calib a ion. The Jou nal o Expe imen al Educa ion, 83(3), 386–404. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1080/00220973.2014.907230
Hack, A., &Von Biebe s ein, F. (2015). How expec a ions a ec e e ence poin o ma ion: An
expe imen al in es iga ion. Re iew o Manage ial Science, 9(1), 33–59. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s11846-014-0121-0
Hack, A., on Biebe s ein, F., &K aiczy, N. D. (2016). Re e ence poin o ma ion and new en u e
c ea ion. Small Business Economics.h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11187-015-9694-5
Hacke , D. J., Bol, L., &Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calib a ion accu acy in class oom con ex s: The
e ec s o incen i es, eflec ion, and explana o y s yle. Me acogni ion Lea n, 3(2), 101–121. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5
Hea h, C., La ick, R. P., &Wu, G. (1999). Goals as e e ence poin s. Cogni i e Psychology, 38(1), 79–
109. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/cogp.1998.0708
He anz-Za zoso, N., &Saba e -G ande, G. (2018). Mone a y incen i es and sel -chosen goals in academic
pe o mance: An expe imen al s udy. In e na ional Re iew o Economics Educa ion, 27,34–44.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.IREE.2018.02.002
Hoelzl, E., &Rus ichini, A. (2005). O e confiden : Do you pu you money on i ? The Economic Jou nal,
115(503), 305–318. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.00990.x
Hol , C. A., &Lau y, S. K. (2002). Risk a e sion and incen i e e ec s. The Ame ican Economic Re iew,
92(5), 1644–1655. h ps://doi.o g/10.1257/000282802762024700
Hoppe, E. I., &Kus e e , D. J. (2011). Beha io al biases and cogni i e eflec ion. Economic Le e s, 110
(2), 97–100. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.ECONLET.2010.11.015
Hossain, B., &Tsiga is, P. (2013). Can business s uden s o ecas hei own g ade? Ame ican Jou nal o
Business Educa ion, 6(1), 85–92.
Hossain, B., &Tsiga is, P. (2015). A e g ade expec a ions a ional? A Class oom Expe imen Educa ion
Economics, 23(2), 199–212. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09645292.2012.735073
Jensen, P. A., &Moo e, R. (2008). S uden s’beha io s, g ades and pe cep ions in an in oduc o y biology
cou se. The Ame ican Biology Teache , 70(8), 483–487. h ps://doi.o g/10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70
[483:SBGPIA]2.0.CO;2
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fas and Slow. New Yo k: Fa a , S aus and Gi oux.
Kahneman, D., &T e sky, A. (1979). P ospec heo y: An analysis o decision unde isk. Econome ica,
47, 263–292. h ps://doi.o g/10.1142/9789814417358_0006
Khachikian, C. S., Guillaume, D. W., &Pham, T. K. (2011). Changes in s uden e o and g ade
expec a ion in he cou se o a e m. Eu opean Jou nal o Enginee ing Educa ion, 36(6), 595–605.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/03043797.2011.637189
Koszegi, B., &Rabin, M. (2006). A model o e e ence-dependen p e e ences. Qua e ly Jou nal o
Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/qje/121.4.1133
Koszegi, B., &Rabin, M. (2007). Re e ence-dependen isk a i udes. Ame ican Economic Re iew.h ps://
doi.o g/10.1257/ae .97.4.1047
Koszegi, B., &Rabin, M. (2009). Re e ence-dependen consump ion plans. Ame ican Economic Re iew,
99(3), 909–936. h ps://doi.o g/10.1257/ae .99.3.909
K uge , J., &Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unawa e o i : How di ficul ies in ecognizing one’s own
incompe ence lead o infla ed sel -assessmen s. Jou nal o Pe sonali yand Social Psychology, 77(6),
1121–1134. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
La ecchia, A. M., Liu, H., &O eopoulos, P. (2016). Beha io al economics o educa ion: P og ess and
possibili ies. Handbook o he Economic Educa ion, 5,1–74. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/B978-0-444-
63459-7.00001-4
Lis , J. A., Li ings on, J. A., &Necke mann, S. (2018). Do financial incen i es c owd ou in insic
mo i a ion o pe o m on s anda dized es s? Economics o Educa ion Re iew, 66, 125–136. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/J.ECONEDUREV.2018.08.002
123
G. Saba e -G ande e al.
Locke, E. A., &La ham, G. P. (2002). Building a p ac ically use ul heo y o goal se ing and ask
mo i a ion: A 35-yea odyssey. Ame ican Psychologis , 57(9), 705–717. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/
0003-066X.57.9.705
Magnus, J. R., &Pe ese sky, A. A. (2018). G ade expec a ions: Ra ionali y and o e confidence. F on ie s
in Psychology, 8, 2346. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2017.02346
Maki, R. H. (1998). Tes p edic ions o e ex ma e ial. In E lbaum (Ed.), Me acogni ion in educa ional
heo y and p ac ice (pp. 117–144). Rou ledge. h ps://doi.o g/10.4324/9781410602350-13
Ma kle, A., Wu, G., Whi e, R., &Sacke , A. (2018). Goals as e e ence poin s in ma a hon unning: A
no el es o e e ence dependence. Jou nal o Risk and Unce ain y, 56(1), 19–50. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1007/s11166-018-9271-9
McG ew, K. S. (2009). CHC heo y and he human cogni i e abili ies p ojec : S anding on he shoulde s o
he gian s o psychome ic in elligence esea ch. In elligence, 37(1), 1–10. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.
INTELL.2008.08.004
Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E., &Mille , E. G. (2006). Mone a y incen i es and mood. Jou nal o Ma ke ing
Resea ch, 43(2), 267–275. h ps://doi.o g/10.1509/jmk .43.2.267
Meng, J. (2019). To gain wi h less pain?: Re e ence-dependence in s uden s’exam pe o mance and e o
p o ision. SSRN Elec onic Jou nal.h ps://doi.o g/10.2139/ss n.3505051
Mille , T. M., &Ge aci, L. (2011). T aining me acogni ion in he class oom: The influence o incen i es
and eedback on exam p edic ions. Me acogni ion Lea n, 6(3), 303–314.
Moo e, D. A., &Healy, P. J. (2008). The ouble wi h o e confidence. Psychological Re iew, 115(2), 502–
517. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502
Mu s ein, B. I. (1965). The ela ionship o g ade expec a ions and g ades belie ed o be dese ed o ac ual
g ades ecei ed. The Jou nal o Expe imen al Educa ion, 33(4), 357–362. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
00220973.1965.11010894
Nicholson, L., Pu wain, D., Conno s, L., &Ho nby-A kinson, P. (2013). The key o success ul
achie emen as an unde g adua e s uden : Confidence and ealis ic expec a ions? S udies in Highe
Educa ion, 38(2), 285–298. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/03075079.2011.585710
Nowell, C., &Als on, R. M. (2007). I hough I go an A! o e confidence ac oss he economics cu iculum.
Jou nal o Economic Educa ion, 38(2), 131–142. h ps://doi.o g/10.3200/JECE.38.2.131-142
Oechssle , J., Roide , A., &Schmi z, P. W. (2009). Cogni i e abili ies and beha io al biases. Jou nal o
Economic Beha io &O ganiza ion, 72(1), 147–152. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/J.JEBO.2009.04.018
Pa k, Y. J., &San os-Pin o, L. (2010). O e confidence in ou namen s: E idence om he field. Theo y
and Decision, 69, 143–166. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11238-010-9200-0
Saenz, G. D., Ge aci, L., &Ti so, R. (2019). Imp o ing me acogni ion: A compa ison o in e en ions.
Applied Cogni i e Psychology, 33(5), 918–929. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/acp.3556
Sande , P., De La Fuen e A ias, J., S e enson, K., &Jones, T. (2011). A alida ion o he academic
beha iou al confidence scale wi h spanish psychology s uden s. Psychology Lea ning and Teaching,
10(1), 11–24. h ps://doi.o g/10.2304/pla .2011.10.1.11
Sande , P., &Sande s, L. (2009). Measu ing academic beha iou al confidence: The ABC scale e isi ed.
S udies in Highe Educa ion, 34(1), 19–35. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/03075070802457058
San os-Pin o, L., &de la Rosa, L. E. (2020) O e confidence in labo ma ke s. In Handbook o Labo ,
Human Resou ces and Popula ion Economics, pp. 1–42.
Se a, M. J., &DeMa ee, K. G. (2016). Unskilled and unawa e in he class oom: College s uden s’desi ed
g ades p edic hei biased g ade p edic ions. Memo y and Cogni ion, 44(7), 1127–1137. h ps://doi.
o g/10.3758/s13421-016-0624-9
S ano ich, K. E., &Wes , R. F. (1998). Indi idual di e ences in a ional hough . Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Gene al, 127(2), 161–188.
S u ges, D., Mau e , T. W., Allen, D., Ga ch, D. B., &Shanka , P. (2016). Academic pe o mance in human
ana omy and physiology classes: A 2-y s udy o academic mo i a ion and g ade expec a ion.
Ad ances in Physiology Educa ion, 40(1), 26–31. h ps://doi.o g/10.1152/ad an.00091.2015
S anum, S., &Biga i, S. (2006). G ade Expec a ions: In o med o unin o med op imism, o bo h?
Teaching o Psychology, 33(1), 14–18. h ps://doi.o g/10.1207/s15328023 op3301_4
Tandon, R. K. (1971). Manual o Di ec ions : The G oup Tes o Gene al Men al Abili y (A Poin Scale o
Adul s). K.G.K. College Building, Mu adabad
T e sky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1992). Ad ances in p ospec heo y: Cumula i e ep esen a ion o
unce ain y. Jou nal o Risk and Unce ain y, 5(4), 297–323. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF00122574
an Len , M., &Sou e ijn, M. (2020). Goal se ing and aising he ba : A field expe imen . Jou nal o
Beha io al and Expe imen al Economics, 87, 101570. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101570
123
Goals and guesses as e e ence poin s: a field expe imen on s uden …