Journal of Economic Psychology最新文献

While non-monetary reinforcement is often discussed as a promising intervention technique, systematic research on its effectiveness for the promotion of pro-environmental behavior has been scarce. This lack of research is likely due to the difficulty of studying non-monetary reinforcement within existing study designs. Here, we examined the effects of non-monetary reinforcement using a recently developed and validated pro-environmental behavior task. In two preregistered studies (total N = 997), participants could repeatedly choose to exert actual effort in exchange for donations to an environmental organization. Their choices were either followed by potentially reinforcing stimuli (e.g., words of praise superimposed on positively valenced pictures) or not. When accompanied by cheerful animal pictures, these stimuli significantly promoted pro-environmental effort expenditure in Study 2, but not in Study 1. Longer-term effects and spillover to non-reinforced behavior were also examined, but not conclusively supported. These findings illustrate the potential of the presented experimental approach for studying the effectiveness of non-monetary reinforcement in societally relevant domains.

In an online multilevel public goods experiment, we implement four treatments where we gradually increase the marginal per capita return of the global public good. First, we find evidence of an increase in the contribution to the global good (levelling-up effect). Secondly, subjects fund their higher contribution to the global good by reducing their contribution to the local good (substitution effect) rather than by increasing total contribution, i.e., the sum of their contributions to the local and the global good (marginal crowding-in effect). Moreover, we observe that total contribution increases as a consequence of the mere introduction of the global good (categorical crowding-in effect). Finally, we observe that subjects continue to contribute to both public goods even when they are dominated in terms of costs and returns.

In recent years, committee quotas have been introduced to combat the underrepresentation of women in male-stereotyped environments. However, the lack of clarity surrounding in-group preferences and gender differences in group dynamics calls into question the inclusion of women as a solution to the gender gap in labour market outcomes. In this paper, I provide experimental evidence to show: a) how the gender composition of committees affects the probability of female candidates being recruited in a hiring process; and b) how men and women behave in group dynamics as a mechanism explaining the outcome of the policy. I designed a laboratory experiment in which groups of three subjects had to jointly select two candidates from a pool of six to perform a task. Female candidates’ probability of success did not improve as the number of women in the committee increased. I found that male-majority committees were the most beneficial for female candidates. In these groups, men and women exhibited a similar level of voice and influence during deliberations, proposing both male and female candidates for recruitment. Conversely, female-majority groups were the most detrimental to female candidates. Women in female-majority groups exhibited a similar level of voice, but men, who proposed more male candidates, were more influential, which limited the contribution of women. The paper suggests that having more women in the committee does not necessarily benefit female candidates and calls for caution when it comes to designing policies for equality in the labour market.

Over the past two decades, economists have begun to incorporate evidence from neuroscience into applied economic research. While some progress has been made, the wider economics profession has yet to embrace the new field of “neuroeconomics.” I argue here that a broad reconciliation of emerging evidence from neuroscience with conventional economic decision theory can be achieved by emphasizing the critical role of neuroendocrine signaling molecules and their receptors. Many of these molecules are amenable to measurement and manipulation in laboratory settings, and most have – when viewed in light of their natural history – a parsimonious interpretation as representing what economists refer to as subjective beliefs.

Social media use plays an important role in shaping individuals’ social attitudes and economic behaviours. One of the first well-known examples of social media campaigns is the Ice Bucket Challenge (IBC), a charity campaign that went viral on social media networks in August 2014, aiming to collect money for research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We rely on UK longitudinal data to investigate the causal impact of the Ice Bucket Challenge on pro-social behaviours. In detail, this study shows that having been exposed to the IBC increases the probability of donating money, and it also increases the amount of money donated among those who donate at most £100. We also find that exposure to the IBC has increased the probability of volunteering and the level of interpersonal trust. However, all these results, except for the result on the intensive margins of donations, are of short duration and are limited to less than one year. This supports the prevalent consensus that social media campaigns may have only short-term effects.

Saving disposition, the tendency to save rather than consume, has been found to be associated with economic outcomes. People lacking the disposition to save are more likely to experience financial distress. This association could be driven by other economic factors, behavioral traits, or even genetic effects. Using a sample of 3,920 American twins, we develop scales to measure saving disposition and financial distress. We find genetic influences on both traits, but also a large effect of the rearing family environment on saving disposition. We estimate that 44% of the covariance between the two traits is due to genetic effects. Saving disposition remains strongly associated with lower financial distress, even after controlling for family income, cognitive ability, and personality traits. The association persists within families and monozygotic twin pairs; the twin who saves more tends to be the twin who experiences less financial distress. This result suggest that there is a direct association between saving disposition and financial distress, although the direction of causation remains unclear.

Recent studies have illustrated that individuals with higher numeracy are more likely to make adaptive choices than individuals with lower numeracy. Highly numerate individuals can consistently make normatively superior choices by maximizing expected value (EV) in meaningful choice problems (high-payoff condition). However, in trivial problems (low-payoff condition), they can also adaptively change their strategy to make good enough choices and not follow a normatively superior strategy. Upon inspection of choice problems used in earlier studies, it was revealed that payoff was not the only varying factor between the two payoff conditions. Therefore, it is unclear whether payoff conditions alone can provide sufficient context for adaptive modulation in decision strategy. In two pre-registered studies (N = 343), we tested numerate individuals’ adaptiveness under high- and low-payoff conditions addressing the limitations of earlier studies. Results revealed that the presence of two payoff conditions together did not initiate adaptive strategy selection, regardless of participants’ numeracy. Instead, numerate individuals, compared to less numerate individuals, consistently made more EV-consistent choices in both payoff conditions. We identified that the change in EV consistency across payoff conditions was influenced more by the absolute difference than the relative difference in the expected reward.

Fetal exposure to sex hormones can have long lasting effects on human behavior. The second-to-fourth digit ratio (DR) is considered a putative marker for prenatal exposure to testosterone (vs estrogens), with higher exposure resulting in lower DR. Even though testosterone is theoretically related to competition, the role of DR in human behavior is debated; and in situations such as bilateral conflict is unknown. We investigate this through a laboratory experiment using a repeated 2-person Tullock contest played in fixed same-gender pairs. Based on a previously obtained large sample of student subjects, we selectively invited participants to the laboratory if their right-hand DR was in the top (High-DR) or bottom (Low-DR) tercile for their gender. Unbeknownst to the subjects, we performed a controlled match of the DR types (Low-Low, Low-High, High-High). This novel methodology allows us to analyze the causal effect of DR on behavior for the first time in the literature. We find that Low-DR (vs High-DR) males compete more aggressively regardless of the counterpart’s type. For females’ conflict behavior, the counterpart’s type matters more than the decision-maker’s type: Low-DRs are non-significantly more aggressive but every-one is more aggressive against High-DRs. Limitations due to sample size are discussed.

We use a field experiment to evaluate the impacts of two price negotiation tactics on buyers’ bargaining payoffs in a marketplace where face-to-face haggling determines price and sellers often cheat on the weight. We implement three scripted interventions, all involving undercover buyers requesting a non-specific price discount. In one of the non-baseline interventions, buyers undervalue the product, while in the other, buyers reveal their inability to pay the quoted price, both at the discount-request phase. The data from a within-seller design show that compared to devaluing the opponent’s product, mentioning one’s lack of affordability leads to a higher rate of bargaining success and a higher mean price discount, culminating in a higher buyer payoff net of the monetary value of cheating. We also find that merely asking for a discount without furnishing a reason, as in our baseline intervention, leads to better bargaining outcomes for buyers than underestimating the opponent’s product.

The term momentum (or hot hand) is widely used by researchers from various disciplines when addressing streakiness. Indeed, stock prices, presidential approval ratings, students’ grades, and basketball games outcomes might all exhibit some degree of serial correlation. Over time, serial correlation assessment has evolved into a thriving research field, and it might have become a rather technical and specific matter if not for the concept of momentum that provides this “conquest for streakiness” with some theoretical underpinning and a general appeal. In this paper, we distinguish between within-contest, across-contest, and other types of serial dependencies. We also elaborate on the psychophysiological mechanisms underlying the within-contest success breeds success effect. We then bridge between literature on goal setting, high performance cycle, and momentum, as a means for addressing across-contest dependency in performance. Finally, we emphasize that the underlying mechanisms of the within-contest and across-contest success breeds success effect cannot readily explain serial correlation in other spheres. We therefore encourage researchers to go beyond simply labeling their researched phenomenon as momentum (or hot hand), instead developing more specific models and descriptions of the underlying mechanisms.