In Simple Words
Imagine buying coffee where one sign says "12 oz for $3 and 16 oz for $4" and another sign says "12 oz for $3 plus $1 for 4 extra ounces"; if buyers choose the larger cup at identical rates under both signs, it proves they clearly understand the true cost per additional ounce regardless of sign design.
Applicants choosing 35 or 40 work hours
- Two hourly wages
- Similar estimated time value
- Extra hours priced separately
- Similar estimated time value
Real applicants chose between 35 and 40 hours under randomized wage wording. Estimates were close; the study does not establish exact equivalence.
See source →Research question
When job choices present compensation as differing overall hourly averages across two schedules rather than explicit incremental pay for extra hours, workers might fail to calculate true marginal incentives, distorting revealed reservation wages.
Participants
N = 272 applicants presented with a 35 vs 40 hours/week job comparison across 80 U.S. metro areas.
Study Design
Randomized validation study comparing choices between (1) traditional framing with two distinct average hourly rates versus (2) overtime framing with a single base hourly wage up to 35 hours plus an explicit marginal wage for hours 36–40.
Results
Estimated marginal values of time are statistically indistinguishable between average wage framing ($12.00, s.e. = 1.50) and explicit marginal wage framing, confirming that structural framing does not bias applicant labor supply evaluations.
Takeaway
Validate complex pricing or wage experimental designs by testing whether presenting options as total average rates versus incremental marginal rates yields identical structural parameter choices.