Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920924›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Design, comparison and selection of two competition incentive mechanisms.

Dahai Li, Huan Wang, Jingcheng Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dahai LiSchool of Big Data and Statistics, Anhui University, Hefei, Anhui Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4099-6366
Huan WangSchool of Finance, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China.
Jingcheng YeHengyang Normal University, Facuity of Economics and Management, Hengyang, Hunan Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When facing multiple agent teams, principals often implement competitive mechanisms to mitigate moral hazard. These mechanisms can be categorized as either result-oriented or process-oriented, depending on their operational focus. This paper analyzes the optimal incentive contracts offered by principals to agents under these two competitive modes. Furthermore, to mitigate potential conflicts arising from these mechanisms, the matching of agents with varying abilities is also considered. Our analysis reveals that both competitive modes can effectively incentivize agent effort. However, excessive result-oriented competition can be detrimental to the principal's benefits, suggesting that its intensity should be carefully calibrated. Moreover, when forming agent pairs, a "strong-weak" pairing is preferable to a "strong-strong" pairing, which, in turn, is preferable to a "weak-weak" pairing. Finally, this paper discusses the scope of application for each competition-incentive system. These findings provide a foundation for effectively utilizing competitive mechanisms to enhance the principal's returns.

Indexed as

Competitive BehaviorMotivationGame TheoryHumans

Identifiers

PMID41920924
PMCPMC13043063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.