Empathy: A clue for prosocialty and driver of indirect reciprocity.

Indirect reciprocity has been proposed to explain prosocial behavior among strangers, whereby the prosocial act is returned by a third party. However, what happens if the prosocial act cannot be observed by the third party? Here, we examine whether empathy serves as a clue for prosociality and whether people are more generous toward more empathetic people. In a laboratory study, we measured prosocial behavior as the amount sent in the dictator game and empathy based on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). By using an incentivized task, we find that people believe that more empathetic participants send more money in the dictator game. Thus, people see empathy as a clue for prosocial behavior. Furthermore, in a second dictator game, participants indirectly reciprocate by sending more money to more empathetic recipients. Therefore, we suggest that empathy can replace a reputation derived from observable prosocial behavior in triggering indirect reciprocity

Social preferences and sales performance

We use an incentivized experimental game to uncover heterogeneity in social preferences among salespeople in a large Austrian retail chain. Our results show that the majority of agents take the welfare of others into account but a significant fraction reveal selfish behavior. Matching individual behavior in the game with firm data on sales performance shows that agents with social preferences achieve a significantly higher revenue per customer. However, at the same time, they achieve fewer sales per day. Both effects offset each other, so that the overall association with total sales revenue becomes insignificant. Our findings highlight the nuanced role of selfish versus social preferences in sales contexts with important implications for economic research

Penalty contracts: is it all about paying the cash upfront?

We experimentally investigate the relevance of a cash upfront payment for the effort-enhancing effect of penalty contracts. We find that penalty contracts where participants receive the upfront payment physically before working on a real effort task induce more effort than penalty contracts where participants are only informed about the upfront payment. When comparing penalty contracts with economically-equivalent bonus contracts, we find that penalty contracts lead to higher effort provision than bonus contracts, but only if participants physically receive the upfront cash payment in advance. We suggest that the higher salience of the cash upfront payment might be a core driver of the detected framing effect. Our findings emphasize the importance of experimental design choices when studying framed incentive contracts

The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food

We evaluate the impact of different information sequences on participants’ hypothetical willingness to pay (WTP) for food produced using nanotechnology. In three treatment groups, information on the health, societal, or environmental impact linked to nanotechnology was revealed in different sequences: an imposed order, a chosen order, and a chosen order after a discussion among participants. Results show that information choice is important. While in the imposed order, the first information revealed has no effect on WTP, the information chosen first has a strong impact. Discussion has no further impact. Health information was a priority and significantly decreased WTP, while societal and environmental information did not significantly influence WTP.discussion, experimental economics, food nanotechnology, information choice, willingness to pay, Demand and Price Analysis,

The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature

Using survey data, we examine public attitudes toward and awareness of nanotechnology in Germany (N = 750). First, it is shown that a majority of the people are still not familiar with nanotechnology. In addition, diffusion of information about nanotechnology thus far mostly seems to reach men and people with a relative higher educational background. Also, pro-science and technology views are positively related with nanotech familiarity. Results further show that a majority of the people have an indifferent, ambiguous, or non-attitude toward nanotechnology. Multinomial logit analyses further reveal that nanotech familiarity is positively related with people’s attitudes. In addition, it is shown that traditional religiosity is unrelated to attitudes and that individual religiosity is weakly related to nanotechnology attitudes. However, moral covariates other than religiosity seem of major importance. In particular, our results show that more negative views on technological and scientific progress as well as more holistic views about the relation between people and the environment increase the likelihood of having a negative attitude toward nanotechnology

Gain versus loss contracts: Does contract framing affect agents’ reciprocity?

Loss contracts are rarely observed in practice, although research suggests that they induce higher effort compared to gain contracts. We experimentally examine one potential reason for this scarcity: agents’ reciprocity toward the principal might be negatively affected by loss contracts. First, agents worked on a real effort task under either a gain or a loss contract. Second, rincipals and agents played a trust game. We find that loss contracts induce more effort, and thus a higher payoff for the principal in the real effort task. However, we do not find a spillover effect of contract framing in the trust game. Differences in reciprocity are small in size and not significant. Thus, they cannot explain the rare use of loss contracts in practice

The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature

In spite of great expectations about the potential of nanotechnology, this study shows that people are rather ambiguous and pessimistic about nanotechnology applications in the food domain. Our findings are drawn from a survey of public perceptions about nanotechnology food and nanotechnology food packaging (N = 752). Multinomial logistic regression analyses further reveal that knowledge about food risks and nanotechnology significantly influences people's views about nanotechnology food packaging. However, knowledge variables were unrelated to support for nanofood, suggesting that an increase in people's knowledge might not be sufficient to bridge the gap between the excitement some business leaders in the food sector have and the restraint of the public. Additionally, opposition to nanofood was not related to the use of heuristics but to trust in governmental agencies. Furthermore, the results indicate that public perceptions of nanoscience in the food domain significantly relate to views on science, technology, and nature