How Does Voice Matter? Evidence from the Ultimatum Game

Prior research in economics and psychology has shown that process can matter in determining outcomes in many social situations. In particular, the opportunity to express ones opinion-voice-has been found to be highly influential. However, little is known about the channels through which voice may operate. In this paper, we develop a simple economic model of voice to explore these channels. We show that individuals value voice for: 1) its effect on outcomes, 2) its inherent value, or 3) its role in signaling one's social standing. Through the introduction of a hypothetical round in the standard ultimatum game, we were able to test the channels of voice directly by observing recipients' responses to offers which are lower than what they asked for. Our experimental results suggest that voice works primarily through its inherent value which appears to exceed its contribution to the perception of procedural fairness. Further, unlike voice which softens the impact of an unfair outcome, the possibility for voice may have dichotomous effects.voice, ultimatum game

Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination

Abstract We develop a new approach to directly and strictly distinguish indecisiveness from indifference. In our approach experimental subjects face a list of pairs of options. Besides the standard choice of choosing one option out of the pair (the binary choice), we also allow experimental subjects to randomize over the two options by choosing probabilities according to which either option determines the payoffs (the randomized choice). Furthermore, we elicit subjects' willingness to pay (WTP) of using the randomized choice via a modified multiple price list method. We show that subjects might strictly prefer the randomized choice over the binary choice when they are indecisive. Our results suggest that (1) the vast majority of subjects randomized actively; (2) subjects took longer time to make strictly randomized decisions; (3) subjects were willing to pay a strictly positive amount of money to randomize, and they were willing to pay more for randomized choices with randomizing probabilities close to 0.5 than those with randomizing probabilities close to 0 or 1. These results provide strong evidence for the existence of indecisiveness in choices. More importantly, it suggests that there might exist significant welfare losses when indecisive individuals are forced to make all-or-nothing decisions against their potentially incomplete preferences

Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination

We develop a new approach to directly and strictly distinguish indecisiveness from indifference, and study the prevalence and welfare implications of indecisiveness. In our approach experimental subjects face a list of pairs of options. Besides the standard choice of choosing one option out of the pair (the binary choice), we also allow experimental subjects to randomize over the two options by choosing probabilities according to which either option determines the payoffs (the randomized choice). Furthermore, we elicit subjects' willingness to pay (WTP) of using the randomized choice via a modified multiple price list method. We show that subjects might strictly prefer the randomized choice over the binary choice when they are indecisive. Our results suggest that (1) the vast majority of subjects randomized actively; (2) subjects took longer time to make strictly randomized decisions; (3) subjects were willing to pay a strictly positive amount of money to randomize, and they were willing to pay more for choices that they feel more indecisive. These results provide strong evidence for the existence of indecisiveness in choices. More importantly, it suggests that there might exist significant welfare losses when indecisive individuals are forced to make all-or-nothing decisions against their potentially incomplete preferences

Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination

We develop a new approach to directly and strictly distinguish indecisiveness from indifference, and study the prevalence and welfare implications of indecisiveness. In our approach experimental subjects face a list of pairs of options. Besides the standard choice of choosing one option out of the pair (the binary choice), we also allow experimental subjects to randomize over the two options by choosing probabilities according to which either option determines the payoffs (the randomized choice). Furthermore, we elicit subjects' willingness to pay (WTP) of using the randomized choice via a modified multiple price list method. We show that subjects might strictly prefer the randomized choice over the binary choice when they are indecisive. Our results suggest that (1) the vast majority of subjects randomized actively; (2) subjects took longer time to make strictly randomized decisions; (3) subjects were willing to pay a strictly positive amount of money to randomize, and they were willing to pay more for choices that they feel more indecisive. These results provide strong evidence for the existence of indecisiveness in choices. More importantly, it suggests that there might exist significant welfare losses when indecisive individuals are forced to make all-or-nothing decisions against their potentially incomplete preferences

Measuring subjective decision confidence

Information on decision confidence provides important insights into decision-making. In place of self-reported confidence statements in earlier studies, this study examines an incentivized approach to elicit quantitative decision confidence experimentally and theoretically. This approach allows the individual to choose randomization probabilities according to which she receives each option instead of committing to one option as in standard binary choices. We demonstrate theoretically that randomization probabilities reveal the individual's decision confidence level. In an experiment that elicited both randomization probabilities and confidence statements about standard binary choices from subjects, we find that randomization probabilities varied systematically with decision confidence and are a viable measure of decision confidence. Our study contributes to the discussion of convex preference by relating preference for randomization to an intuitive psychological concept of decision confidence

Essays on happiness, intergenerational transmission and the environment.

An individual’s well-being is determined by a wide variety of factors, which ranges from individual choices, family influence, to the environment where they live. While it is impossible to study all the factors which affect an individual’s well-being in a thesis, this thesis provides an overview of how individual’s well-being can be influenced by these three dimensions through three self-contained essays. The first essay investigates whether choosing a job based on your risk preferences is important for long term job satisfaction. We did not find evidence which suggests that individuals whose jobs match their risk preferences have higher job satisfaction than individuals whose jobs do not match their risk preferences in the long run. The second essay explores the extent of altruism within a family. Using self-reported life happiness and life satisfaction, we found that mutual altruism exists between mother and child, but not between father and child. These findings are robust to the measure of self-reported well-being. The third essay discusses public perception of the importance of government spending on environment compared to education and transport on public well-being. Through a paired comparison survey conducted in Singapore and Bangkok, we found that individuals with high personal income are more likely to prefer public spending on the environment compared to education if they are residing in a developed city with mature education system. Further, we found that while public preferences in Bangkok are consistent with government priorities in budget allocation, Singapore residents appear to prefer more spending on environment than education than the current budget allocation.Doctor of Philosophy (HSS

How Does Voice M atter? E vidence from the Ultimatum G ame

A bstract social and economic interactions, but little is known of the mechanisms through which voice operates. Using an experimental approach based on the ultimatum game with the strategy method, we explore four potential channels for voice that encompass and expand on prior work: the knowledge effect of voice, the value expressive (or inherent value) of voice, the expectation effect of voice, and the procedural fairness effects of voice. Our results show strong effects through the value expressive and expectation channel, but not through either the knowledge channel or procedural fairness. In our view, voice is powerful because people like to express their views and they are disappointed when their views did not make a difference in their outcomes

How does voice matter? Evidence from the ultimatum game

Prior research has demonstrated that the ability to express one’s views or “voice” matters in social and economic interactions, but little is known of the mechanisms through which voice operates. Using an experimental approach based on the ultimatum game with the strategy method, we explore four potential channels for voice that encompass and expand on prior work: the knowledge effect of voice, the value expressive (or inherent value) of voice, the expectation effect of voice, and the procedural fairness effects of voice. Our results show strong effects through the value expressive and expectation channel, but not through either the knowledge channel or procedural fairness. In our view, voice is powerful because people like to express their views and they are disappointed when their views did not make a difference in their outcomes

Pitfalls of self-reported measures of self-control: Surprising insights from extreme debtors

10.1111/jopy.12733JOURNAL OF PERSONALIT