Back to History

Fields Changed

Registration

Field Before After
Trial Title Paid With(out) Purpose: Costs of Poor Matches on the Meaning of Work Paid With(out) Purpose: Perceptions, Preferences, and the Meaning of Work
Trial Status on_going completed
Abstract Recent reporting and studies in Economics discuss meaning or purpose as an important dimension of work. Like location, culture, or benefits, work meaning may enter idiosyncratically into a worker's utility function and affect work choices on both extensive and intensive margins. I replicate and extend the findings of other studies (e.g. Burbano 2016) that workers have lower reservation pay amounts for tasks framed as meaningful (relative to the same task not framed as meaningful), even absent a firm-framing context. However, mine and other studies have used a constant, top-down, inflexible assignment of "meaningful" and "non-meaningful" task framing in our designs, not allowing for variation in worker perception of and taste for meaning. Therefore, I then investigate potential costs of poor matching of worker and task on this dimension of meaning, allowing for heterogeneity in both worker perception of and preference for meaning. I develop a novel online experiment with 387 subjects on Prolific and simple utility model to examine how workers respond to reported work meaning. Workers appear to value different aspects of work and be willing to give up other incentives for their best work match. 31% of workers appear not to value meaning in their work, 27% appear not to value work pay, 30% appear to value both, and 12% cannot be characterized. Overall, 57% of workers are willing to sacrifice up to 14% of possible pay in their pursuit of meaningful work. For workers who value work meaning, I estimate positive impacts of meaningfulness on the quantity and quality of output, although these effects appear only for a task with prosocial framing. Finally, I validate a light-touch treatment designed to increase worker awareness of the value they place on meaning, again finding effects only for workers who seek meaning in their work. Importantly, raising worker awareness of work meaning has no impact on the types of incentives they seek out. These results offer insights into how such interventions and preferences for work meaning might be leveraged in organizational settings.
Trial End Date June 30, 2026 October 20, 2025
JEL Code(s) J2, J3, M5, C91 J2, J3, D9, C91
Last Published February 18, 2026 05:10 PM February 18, 2026 05:24 PM
Study Withdrawn No
Intervention Completion Date October 20, 2025
Data Collection Complete Yes
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) 387 subjects
Was attrition correlated with treatment status? No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations 387 subjects
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms Awareness treatment 183 subjects, Null control 204 subjects
Is there a restricted access data set available on request? Yes
Restricted Data Contact [email protected]
Program Files No
Data Collection Completion Date October 20, 2025
Is data available for public use? No
Intervention Start Date July 01, 2025 June 10, 2025
Intervention End Date July 31, 2025 October 20, 2025
Was the treatment clustered? Yes No
Planned Number of Clusters 2000 subjects 400 subjects
Planned Number of Observations 10000 observations; 5 rounds per subject 400 subjects
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms 250 subjects ex-ante ranking; no training round; no mission information 250 subjects ex-ante ranking; training round; no mission information 250 subjects ex-ante ranking; no training round; mission information 250 subjects ex-ante ranking; training round; mission information 250 subjects ex-post ranking; no training round; no mission information 250 subjects ex-post ranking; training round; no mission information 250 subjects ex-post ranking; no training round; mission information 250 subjects ex-post ranking; training round; mission information Awareness treatment 200 subjects, Null control 200 subjects
Additional Keyword(s) meaningful work, incentives, matching Meaningful Work, Nonmonetary Incentives, Labor Supply, Awareness
Back to top

Irbs

Field Before After
IRB Approval Date September 04, 2024 October 03, 2025
IRB Approval Number 2225085-1 2225085-2
Back to top

Papers

Field Before After
Paper Abstract I develop a novel online experiment with 387 subjects on Prolific and simple utility model to examine how workers respond to reported work meaning. Workers appear to value different aspects of work and be willing to give up other incentives for their best work match. 31% of workers appear not to value meaning in their work, 27% appear not to value work pay, 30% appear to value both, and 12% cannot be characterized. Overall, 57% of workers are willing to sacrifice up to 14% of possible pay in their pursuit of meaningful work. For workers who value work meaning, I estimate positive impacts of meaningfulness on the quantity and quality of output, although these effects appear only for a task with prosocial framing. Finally, I validate a light-touch treatment designed to increase worker awareness of the value they place on meaning, again finding effects only for workers who seek meaning in their work. Importantly, raising worker awareness of work meaning has no impact on the types of incentives they seek out. These results offer insights into how such interventions and preferences for work meaning might be leveraged in organizational settings.
Paper Citation Beauregard, Remy, Paid With(out) Purpose: Perceptions, Preferences, and the Meaning of Work (November 27, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5676482 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5676482
Paper URL https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5676482
Back to top