Stress in performance-related pay: the effect of payment contracts and social-evaluative threat

Figures & data

Figure 1. Experimental procedure. A timeline presenting a 10-min block of relaxation, followed by a block of practice (with no time specified), a 10-min block of work task and two more 10-min blocks of relaxation. Arrows indicate cortisol collection points after each timed block and survey completion after the first relaxation phase and after the work task.

Table 1. Sample characteristics in first session.

	PRP	Fixed payment
	n = 110	n = 96
Female	70 (63.64%)	63 (65.63%)
24+ years	35 (31.82%)	24 (25.00%)
Undergrad	89 (80.91%)	81 (84.38%)
Edu—arts	33 (30.00%)	32 (33.33%)
Edu—business school	31 (28.18%)	26 (27.08%)
Edu—life sciences	24 (21.81%)	23 (23.96%)
Edu—physical sciences	21 (19.09%)	14 (14.58%)
GHQ-12 score	M = 1.12	M = 1.15
Arithmetic skill pre-task score	M = 2.47	M = 2.57

GHQ-12 = General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988). GHQ-12 scores range from 0-3 with scores above 2 generally considered to be indicative of poor mental health (Goldberg et al., 1997). Arithmetic skill scored from 1 (“very good”) to 5 (“very poor”).

Table 2. Self-reported means and standard deviations for each group.

	PRP		Fixed payment
	Low SET	High SET	Low SET	High SET
Stress	1.26	1.52	1.13	1.55
	(0.79)	(0.84)	(0.87)	(0.86)
Exhaustion	1.02	1.07	0.82	1.12
	(0.73)	(0.69)	(0.76)	(0.81)
Effort	2.19	2.35	2.04	2.14
	(0.72)	(0.61)	(0.73)	(0.71)
Strain	1.71	1.87	1.56	1.82
	(0.89)	(0.82)	(1.03)	(0.82)
Risk of being negatively judged by others	0.87	1.12	0.86	1.18
	(1.09)	(1.15)	(1.08)	(1.12)
Risk that others would believe that performance reflected ability	1.52	1.61	1.60	1.74
	(1.11)	(1.11)	(1.03)	(1.04)
Arithmetic ability	2.56	2.72	2.64	2.74
	(0.99)	(1.00)	(1.10)	(1.00)

SET = social evaluative threat; PRP = performance-related pay. Stress, exhaustion, effort and strain refer to the first four self-reported items in the post-task survey: “After the task, how stressed do you feel?” “After the task, how exhausted do you feel?” “How much effort did you exert solving the mathematical problems in the previous 10 minutes?” and “Did you feel under strain when solving the mathematical problems in the previous 10 minutes?” (all scored from 0 = “None at all”/“Not at all” to 3 = “Much more”/“Great”).

Table 3. Cortisol means and standard deviations for each group.

	PRP		Fixed payment
	Low SET	High SET	Low SET	High SET
AUCi	−23.25	−28.81	−25.54	−14.67
	(46.07)	(54.46)	(41.98)	(46.29)
Peak change	−0.33	−0.43	−0.39	0.14
	(1.63)	(1.76)	(1.48)	(2.13)
Overall change	−1.27	−1.65	−1.37	−0.88
	(1.93)	(2.36)	(1.77)	(2.25)
AUCg	148.85	159.26	148.46	162.52
	(85.84)	(85.78)	(70.21)	(68.65)
Cortisol 1st sample (nmol/L)	4.30	4.70	4.35	4.43
	(2.73)	(2.97)	(2.36)	(2.23)
Cortisol 2nd sample (nmol/L)	3.73	4.06	3.71	4.01
	(2.35)	(2.27)	(1.84)	(1.77)
Cortisol 3rd sample (nmol/L)	3.48	3.60	3.44	4.03
	(2.02)	(2.13)	(1.76)	(1.97)
Cortisol 4th sample (nmol/L)	3.03	3.05	2.98	3.55
	(1.66)	(1.52)	(1.47)	(1.88)

SET = social evaluative threat; PRP = performance-related pay; AUCi = area under the curve with respect to increase; AUCg = area under the curve with respect to ground.

Figure 2. Mean overall cortisol change levels per subgroup with 95% CI. A boxplot with four bars demonstrating the mean overall change for each payment group-SET combination. The fixed payment-high SET bar has the highest level of overall mean change whereas the PRP-high SET bar has the lowest overall change.

Table 4. Mixed effects regressions for cortisol change outcomes by experimental group.

	AUCi			Peak change			Overall change
	B	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Fixed effects
(Intercept)	−40.59	10.57	<.001	−0.57	0.39	.146	−2.20	0.46	<.001
PRP	−0.43	6.35	.946	−0.04	0.24	.862	0.01	0.28	.978
High SET	10.47	5.48	.058	0.51	0.21	.014	0.49	0.24	.047
PRP*high SET	−15.20	7.59	.047	−0.58	0.29	.042	−0.81	0.34	.017
24+ years	20.46	6.83	.003	0.59	0.25	.021	0.93	0.30	.002
Undergraduate	−6.36	8.16	.437	−0.57	0.30	.058	−0.05	0.36	.887
Male	10.12	5.55	.070	0.37	0.20	.068	0.26	0.24	.280
Second session	3.16	3.81	.408	0.14	0.14	.320	0.17	0.17	.321
Confounding activities	−8.48	5.56	.128	−0.28	0.21	.182	−0.50	0.25	.042
Confounding medications	4.43	6.50	.496	−0.002	0.24	.994	0.17	0.29	.551
Prior participation	16.62	5.65	.001	0.57	0.21	.007	0.77	0.25	.002
Random effects (variances)
Residual	1407.64	144.90	<.001	2.00	0.21	<.001	2.78	0.28	<.001
Subject (Intercept)	617.28	155.05	<.001	0.78	0.21	<.001	1.15	0.29	<.001

SET = social evaluative threat; PRP = performance-related pay. Reference categories are fixed payment performance, low SET, 18–23 years, postgraduate, female, first session, no confounding activities, or medications and no prior participation. Bolded variables indicate statistical significance (α = .05).

Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the GHQ. nFER-Nelson.

 Google Scholar

Goldberg, D. P., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., & Rutter, C. (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27(1), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291796004242

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar