Creativity is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon with tremendous economic importance. A crucial question for economists and for firms is the interplay of incentives and creativity. We present experiments where subjects face creativity tasks where, in one case, ex ante goals and constraints are imposed on their answers (“closed” tasks), and in the other case no restrictions apply (“open” tasks). The effect of tournament incentives on creativity is then tested. Our experimental findings provide striking evidence that financial incentives in the form of tournament competition affect creativity in “closed” (constrained) tasks, but do not facilitate creativity in “open” (unconstrained) tasks, whereas being ranked relative to one's peers is an effective nonmonetary incentive with both types of tasks. We develop a structural model that allows for subjects’ heterogeneity in being affected by the openness of the task, and then use the structural model to not only estimate creative output in tournaments but also to predict creative output in two counterfactual incentive schemes: piece rate and target bonus.

Three main motivations can explain compliance with social norms: fear of peer punishment, the desire for others’ esteem and the desire to meet others’ expectations. Though all play a role, only the desire to meet others’ expectations can sustain compliance when neither public nor private monitoring is possible. Theoretical models have shown that such desire can indeed sustain social norms, but empirical evidence is lacking. Moreover it is unclear whether this desire ranges over others’ “empirical” or “normative” expectations. We propose a new experimental design to isolate this motivation and to investigate what expectations people are inclined to meet. Results indicate that, when nobody can assign either material or immaterial sanctions, the perceived legitimacy of others’ normative expectations can motivate a significant number of people to comply with costly social norms.

Umbilical cord blood is a source of hematopoietic stem cells essential to treat life-threatening diseases, such as leukemia and lymphoma. However, only a very small percentage of parents donate upon delivery. The decision to donate the cord blood occurs at a very specific time and when parents likely experience emotional, informational, and decisional overloads; these features of cord blood donation make it different from other pro-social activities. In collaboration with an OB-GYN clinic in Milan, Italy, we conducted the first randomized controlled trial that applies tools from behavioral science to foster cord blood donation, and quantified the gains that informational and behavioral “nudges” can achieve. We found that information and “soft” commitments increased donations; approaching expecting parents closer to the delivery date and providing them with multiple reminders, moreover, had the strongest impact. However, a significant portion of women who expressed consent to donate could not do so because of organizational constraints. We conclude that simple, non-invasive behavioral interventions that address information gaps and procrastination, and that increase the salience of the activity can substantially enhance altruistic donations of cord blood, especially when coupled with organizational support.