Formal enforcement punishing defectors can sustain cooperation by changing incentives. In this paper, we introduce a second effect of enforcement: it can also affect the capacity to learn about the group's cooperativeness. Indeed, in contexts with strong enforcement, it is difficult to tell apart those who cooperate because of the threat of fines from those who are intrinsically cooperative types. Whenever a group is intrinsically cooperative, enforcement will thus have a negative dynamic effect on cooperation because it slows down learning about prevalent values in the group that would occur under a weaker enforcement. We provide theoretical and experimental evidence in support of this mechanism. Using a lab experiment with independent interactions and random rematching, we observe that, in early interactions, having faced an environment with fines in the past decreases current cooperation. We further show that this results from the interaction between enforcement and learning: the effect of having met cooperative partners has a stronger effect on current cooperation when this happened in an environment with no enforcement. Replacing one signal of deviation without fine by a signal of cooperation without fine in a player's history increases current cooperation by 10%; while replacing it by a signal of cooperation with fine increases current cooperation by only 5%.

Many studies have investigated the role of socio-demographic factors (including gender, age, race), cognitive ability and cultural factors on time and risk preferences. Yet, research regarding the effect of mindfulness on risk and time preferences has been limited. This study investigates the association between mindfulness and time/risk preferences. We conducted a survey on a representative sample of the French adult population (N = 1154) in Spring 2020. We assessed individual mindfulness through the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), and measured time and risk preferences with incentive-compatible economic games as well as self-reported questionnaires. Our results suggest that a higher level of mindfulness is associated with higher risk aversion and patience for stated preferences, but we found no relationship for revealed ones. We also observe that a higher level of mindfulness is related to greater time consistency, as we found a negative and significant association between the MAAS and the present and future biases.

We examine how monetary incentives and information about others’ dishonesty affect lying decisions and whether these two dimensions interact with each other. Our experiment consists of a repeated cheating game where we vary the monetary incentives (Low, High, and Very High) and information about others’ dishonesty (With or Without information). We find that dishonesty decreases when payoffs are Very High. Information has only a weak positive effect on average. Conditioning on beliefs, we find that those who overestimate (underestimate) cheating reduce (increase) dishonesty. Information and payoffs do not interact with each other.

We study an indefinitely repeated Tullock contest in which the stage-game winner gains an incumbency advantage in the next stage-game. The incumbent's advantage allows the incumbent to carry over a proportion of their expenditure in the previous contest to the next contest. Theoretically, this advantage is not predicted to have a large impact on total expenditure. However, in a controlled laboratory experiment, we find the incumbency advantage increases total expenditure by a significant amount. Further, we find that carryover has a discouraging effect on challengers while encouraging incumbents react in a retaliatory manner.

This paper presents the first meta-analysis of the ‘Taking Game,’ a variant of the Dictator Game where participants take money from recipients instead of giving. Upon analyzing data from 39 experiments, which include 123 effect sizes and 7262 offers made by dictators, we discovered a significant framing effect: dictators are more generous in the Taking Game than in the Dictator Game (Cohen's d = 0.26, p < 0.0001), leaving approximately 35.5 percent of the stakes to recipients in the former as opposed to 27.5 percent in the latter. The difference is higher when the participants have earned their endowment before sharing or when the recipient is a charity. Consistent with the standard literature on giving, we also find that participants take less from a charity than from a standard recipient, take less when payoffs are hypothetical, or when recipients have previously earned their endowment. We also find that women (non-students) take less than men (students). Finally, it appears that participants from non-OECD countries leave more money to recipients than participants from OECD countries.

Is there a connection between pro-social behavior and well-being? This question has long been of interest, with Aristotle famously suggesting a nexus between virtues and well-being. To delve into this relationship, I conducted an extensive study encompassing multiple classical economic games and nearly 100 well-being questions. My findings confirm that different patterns of pro-sociality are robustly correlated with each other. On top, I find reliable correlations between well-being and pro-social behavior, as well as certain forms of punishment. In terms of underlying explanations, I observe that pro-sociality is particularly associated with a form of long-term well-being known as eudaimonia, suggesting that pro-social behavior plays a fundamental role in people perceiving their life as meaningful.

Coordination problems arise in many economic, political, and social situations. Many times, authorities and institutions are created to solve these coordination problems. However, the success of these institutions depends on whether people are willing to follow their prescriptions. Using a behavioral experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk we analyze whether an authority can aid in solving hawk-dove coordination games and whether its success depends on a shared identity by the players. The authority is represented in our experiment by a randomizing device that recommends actions to players to implement a socially efficient correlated equilibrium. In the game, players are better off following the recommendations if they believe others will do as well. We investigate whether people are more likely to follow recommendations when they have a shared identity. We find that the device's success is not driven by group membership, but rather by the content of its recommendations.

Measuring the social preferences of economic agents using experiments has become common place. This process, while incentive compatible, is costly and time consuming, making it infeasible in many settings. We combine standard altruism and warm glow choice experiments with a battery of candidate survey questions to construct behaviorally validated questionnaires. We use machine learning to create parsimonious 3-question modules that reliably replicate existing results on general altruism and provide an alternative method for collecting warm glow preferences.

Some economic interactions are based on trust, others on monetary incentives or monitoring. In the tax compliance context, the monitoring approach creates compliance based on audits and fines (enforced compliance), in contrast to the trust-based (voluntary compliance) approach, which is based on taxpayers’ willingness to comply. Here, we examine how changes in taxation regarding platform economy revenues affect intended labor supply on such platforms. New EU legislation, effective from 2023, will mandate data sharing between platforms and tax authorities across Europe, thus resulting in increased monitoring. We investigate how this upcoming shift in monitoring power affects the intended use of platforms and how it may interact with users’ trust. We use a survey among platform workers (N = 626) in the Netherlands to examine views of the proposed regulation change, corrected for the proportion of platform income and several measures of trust. We experimentally manipulate information by either informing participants about the upcoming monitoring change or not. Results show that informing respondents about the change negatively affects expected supply of labor, and this effect is independent of respondents’ trust. We discuss the policy implications of these results.

Salience theory relies on the assumption that not only the marginal distribution of lotteries, but also the correlation of payoffs across states impacts choices. Recent experimental studies on salience theory seem to provide evidence in favor of such correlation effects. However, these studies fail to control for event-splitting effects (ESE). In this paper, we seek to disentangle the role of correlation and event-splitting in two settings: (1) the common consequence Allais paradox as studied by Bordalo et al. (Q J Econ 127:1243–1285, 2012), Frydman and Mormann (The role of salience in choice under risk: An experimental investigation. Working Paper, 2018), and Bruhin et al. (J Risk Uncertain 65:139–184, 2022); (2) choices between Mao pairs as studied by Dertwinkel-Kalt and Köster (J Eur Econ Assoc 18:2057–2107, 2020). In both settings, we find evidence suggesting that recent findings supporting correlation effects are largely driven by ESE. Once controlling for ESE, we find no consistent evidence for correlation effects. Our results thus shed doubt on the validity of salience theory in describing risky behavior.

We contribute to a large literature that explores prosocial behavior in public goods experiments. We adopt an experimental design that allows full contribution to the public good to be sustained in equilibrium. We study the effect of the time horizon on a subject's propensity to contribute to a public good by varying the stopping rule for the game. While many studies examine the effect of a random stopping rule in prisoner's dilemma games, to our knowledge, only two other studies have directly compared behavior in public goods experiments with finite and random stopping rules. Consistent with existing studies, we find that contribution rates are similar across treatments in early rounds of play, and contribution rates are higher with random verses finite stopping rules in later rounds. Overall, we find significantly higher contributions to the public good when donors face a known probability of future interactions with the same group of participants compared to interactions with a finite endpoint. Further, the difference in cooperative behavior is driven primarily by the stopping rule, rather than the length of the game.

I experimentally investigate the relation of endowment origin, cognitive abilities (as measured by the Cognitive Reflection Test, CRT), and co-operation in a one-shot linear public goods game. The results show that subjects’ contributions depend on an interplay of cognitive abilities and endowment origin. A house money effect exists only for subjects with low CRT scores. They contribute more when income was allocated to them and less when income was obtained by effort. In contrast, subjects with high CRT scores contribute the same amount independent of income type. The findings have implications for redistribution, team production, and experimental designs.

Offline volunteering was faced with new challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a survey experiment with 1207 student participants, we test the impact of informing subjects about blood donation urgency (shortage information), and secondly, the effect of providing information about measures taken to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission at blood donation centers (hygiene information), on their inclination to donate during and after the COVID-19 lockdown. The results show that shortage information increases extensive-margin willingness to donate for non-donors by 15 percentage points (pp), on average, and increases the willingness to donate quickly for all respondents. Hygiene information, however, reduces prior donors’ intention to donate again by 8pp, on average, and reduces the willingness of non-donors to donate quickly.

We experimentally study how mutual payoff information affects strategic play. Subjects play the Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt game against randomly re-matched opponents under two information treatments. In our partial-information treatment, subjects are shown only their own payoff structure, while in our full-information treatment they are shown both their own and their opponent's payoff structure. In both treatments, they receive feedback on their opponent's action after each round. We find that mutual payoff information initially facilitates reaching the socially optimal outcome in both games. Play in the Prisoner's Dilemma converges toward the unique Nash equilibrium of the game under both information treatments, while in the Stag Hunt mutual payoff information has a substantial impact on play and equilibrium selection in all rounds of the game. Belief-learning model estimations and simulations suggest these effects are driven by both initial play and the way subjects learn.

This paper investigates risk preferences using an artefactual field experiment conducted with a non-standard subject pool of farmers in Ghana. I introduce an alternative methodology for studying preferences following replication of a seminal risk elicitation procedure by Binswanger (Am J Agric Econ 62(3):395407, 1980). An important feature of both approaches is that they are easy to understand and, hence, are particularly suitable for eliciting preferences among subjects with low levels of formal education. I successfully replicate Binswanger's study, documenting how his original result of the moderate level of risk aversion for an average farmer can be generalized to a different country. However, using my alternative approach, whereby lotteries are presented in the loss domain, I find that half of my experimental subjects violated expected utility theory. This approach is of relevance to the current literature on studying risk preferences among subjects with poor literacy skills.

The widespread Internet “piracy” continues to fuel the debate about business models impervious to copyright infringement. We studied the displacement effects of “piracy” on sales in the book industry. We conducted a year-long large-scale field experiment: in the treatment group, we removed unauthorised copies appearing on the Internet and observed the sales data, whereas in the control group, we simply observed sales. We were able to substantially curb the unauthorised distribution, which resulted in a small, positive effect on sales. While using classical analysis we found it not to be significantly different from zero, a Bayesian approach using previous “piracy” studies to generate a prior led to the conclusion that protecting from piracy resulted in a significant sales boost of about 9 per cent.

Empirical evidence has shown that people with better self-control to a greater extent have the self-regulatory ability to act in line with their long-term goals. In this pre-registered study, the relationship between self-control and self-regulatory behavior was investigated both directly and indirectly, i.e., through affective forecasting ability. This is of great interest as it is necessary to be able to forecast one's emotional response to future events in order to make choices that maximize one's happiness. However, in a laboratory experiment with undergraduate students, I found no evidence of self-control being associated with affective forecasting ability, or that people with better self-control more often acted in a way that maximized their expected happiness.

Are economic decisions affected by short-term stress, failure, or both? Such effects have not been clearly distinguished in previous experimental research, and have the potential to worsen economic outcomes, especially in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. We validate a novel experimental protocol to examine the individual and combined influences of stress, failure, and success. The protocol employs a 2 × 3 experimental design in two sessions and can be used online or in laboratory studies to analyse the impact of these factors on decision-making and behaviour. The stress protocol was perceived as significantly more stressful than a control task, and it induced a sizeable and significant rise in state anxiety. The provision of negative feedback (“failure”) significantly lowered participants’ assessment of their performance, induced feelings of failure, and raised state anxiety.

This paper examines the impact of different ways of inducing discounting in alternating-offer bargaining games in the lab. We examine this by following the framework of Ochs and Roth (Am Econ Rev, pp. 355–384, 1989) and test whether the model's predictions find support in data under three different discounting implementations; the shrinking-pie procedure, the effective-discounting procedure and the bargaining-delay procedure. We find no sensitivity to the number of periods in any of the three procedures. However, we find mixed evidence for the effect of changing the discount factor in the effective-discounting procedure and the shrinking-pie procedure, but the magnitude of effects are small. Furthermore, there was more disagreement in both the effective-discounting and bargaining-delay procedures than in the shrinking-pie procedure.

Decision makers typically possess limited knowledge on states of the world so that use of information from past similar experiences is reasonable. This analogical thinking is formalised by case-based decision theory (CBDT). We created a novel experimental setting to validate the predictive power of CBDT versus Bayesian reasoning. Participants encountered a salient but irrelevant cue which a Bayesian decision maker is likely to ignore but a case-based decision maker may use in assessing similarity. We find that although the irrelevant similarity cue was used, the pattern in participants’ decisions is neither case-based nor Bayesian. The results suggest that CBDT does not apply in simple decision settings where similarity cues are uninformative.