Face Value

There is growing evidence of systematic heterogeneity in behavior by observable characteristics, such as what one would see in a face. We ask, is there informational value in knowing these characteristics in a strategic interaction? Subjects are given the opportunity to purchase a photograph of their partner in the play of a trust game. Not everyone purchases the photo, even at prices as low as $0.20. Senders (first movers in the game) have a more inelastic demand for pictures than responders (second movers). White senders have a substantially higher demand than nonwhite senders or responders. For responders, there is no difference in demand for pictures across ethnicity or sex. White senders who pay to see the picture of their partner use the information to discriminate, sending significantly less to black responders than to white responders. Overall, responders return a higher percentage of the amount received as offers go up, but they do differentiate that percentage when they see the picture of the sender, returning more to a member of the same ethnicity. A face, it appears, has strategic value, especially for those who will use the information to differentiate their decisions.

Will the Working Poor Invest in Human Capital? A Laboratory Experiment

This paper presents the results of a laboratory experiment involving some 250 subjects in the Montreal area. The experiment focused on three main questions : (1) Will the working poor invest in various assets? (2) Are these subjects willing to delay consumption for substantial returns? (3) How do these subjects view risky choices? Answering these questions will help answering the key research question : Given the right incentive, will the working poor save to invest in human capital? To view the report, please click here : www.srdc.org/english/publications/workingpoor.pdf Ce rapport présente les résultats d'une expérience en laboratoire impliquant environ 250 sujets résidant dans la région de Montréal. L'expérience tente de répondre à trois questions : 1) Les travailleurs à faible revenu investissent-ils dans des actifs diversifiés?; 2) Les sujets sont-ils prêts à reporter leur consommation dans le futur en échange de rendements financiers substantiels?; 3) Comment ces sujets perçoivent-ils les choix risqués? Les réponses à ces questions vont permettre d'éclairer le sujet principal de cette recherche menée par le SRDC, à savoir : Si on leur procure les bonnes incitations, les travailleurs à faible revenu auront-ils tendance à épargner pour investir dans du capital humain? Pour visionner l'intégralité du rapport cliquez ici : http://www.srdc.org/uploads/workingpoor.pdf

Saving Decisions of the Working Poor: Short-and Long-Term Horizons

We explore the predictive capacity of short-horizon time preference decisions for long-horizon investment decisions. We use experimental evidence from a sample of Canadian working poor. Each subject made a set of decisions trading off present and future amounts of money. Decisions involved both short and long time horizons, with stakes ranging up to six hundred dollars. Short horizon preference decisions do well in predicting the long-horizon investment decisions. These short horizon questions are much less expensive to administer but yield much higher estimated discount rates. We find no evidence that the present-biased preference measures generated from the short-horizon time preference decisions indicate any bias in long-term investment decisions. We also show that individuals are heterogeneous with respect to discount rates generated by short-horizon time preference decisions and long-horizon time preference decisions. Dans cet article, nous évaluons si les préférences exprimées pour le présent peuvent prédire les décisions d’investissement dans le long terme. L’article mobilise l’approche de l’économie expérimentale avec comme participants des travailleurs canadiens à faibles revenus. Chaque participant est invité à choisir entre une somme qu’il peut toucher à très court terme et un montant plus élevé, mais qui ne lui sera versé que plus tard dans le temps. Pour certains choix, les montants ne seront disponibles que dans 7 ans et peuvent atteindre jusqu’à 600 $. Nous trouvons que les décisions entre le présent et un horizon de court terme permettent de prédire les arbitrages réalisés par les participants entre le présent et des décisions à plus long terme. Ce résultat est important dans la mesure où il est plus difficile et coûteux d’étudier les décisions de long terme que celles de court terme. Nous observons également une forte hétérogénéité entre les participants relativement à leurs taux d’escompte de court et de long terme.intertemporal choice, field experiments, risk attitudes, choix intertemporels, économie expérimentale, attitudes vis-à-vis le risque

Human Capital Investment by the Poor: Informing Policy with Laboratory and Field Experiments

The purpose of the study is to collect information that can be used to design a policy to induce the poor to invest in human capital. We use laboratory experimental methodology to measure the preferences and choices of the target population of a proposed government policy. We recruited 256 subjects in Montreal, Canada; 72 percent had income below 120 percent of the Canadian poverty level. The combination of survey measures and actual decisions allows us to better understand individual heterogeneity in responses to different subsidy levels. Two behavioral characteristics, patience and attitude towards risk, are key to understanding the determinants of educational investment for the low-income individuals in this experiment. The decision to save for a family member’s education is somewhat different from that of investing in one’s own education. Again, patient participants were more likely to save for a family member’s education, but in contrast to investing in one’s own education, a subject’s attitude towards risk played no role. Le but de cette étude est de recueillir des informations pour concevoir une politique publique afin d’inciter les pauvres à investir en capital humain. Nous utilisons l’approche expérimentale pour mesurer les préférences et les choix de la population ciblée. Nous avons recruté 256 sujets à Montréal. 72 % avaient un revenu inférieur à 120 % pour cent du seuil de faible revenu de Statistique Canada. La combinaison de mesures d'enquête et les décisions réelles nous permettent de mieux comprendre l'hétérogénéité individuelle dans les réponses aux différents niveaux de subvention. Deux caractéristiques comportementales, la patience (désir d’épargne) et l'attitude envers le risque, sont essentielles à la compréhension des déterminants de l'investissement éducatif pour les personnes à faible revenu dans cette expérience. La décision d’investir dans l'éducation d'un membre de la famille est quelque peu différente de celle d'investir dans sa propre éducation. Encore une fois, les participants les plus patients sont les plus susceptibles d'épargner pour l'éducation d'un membre de la famille, mais au contraire, investir dans sa propre éducation, l'attitude d'un sujet vis-à-vis le risque ne joue aucun rôle.Intertemporal choice, field experiments, risk attitudes, working poor, choix intertemporels, expériences sur le terrain, les attitudes vis-à-vis le risque, travailleurs pauvres

Loving the Longshot: Risk Taking with Skewed Gambles

To examine the effect of increased skewness on risk taking, we conduct controlled laboratory experiments. Our instrument is an adaption of the Eckel and Grossman (2002, 2008) risk measure (with six gamble choices). The Eckel and Grossman measure is a simplest, easy to understand, exercise that gives sufficient heterogeneity in choices while at the same time minimizing errors. Its simplicity also makes it easy to adapt. The adapted gamble choices are designed to have the same expected payoffs and risk as the original gamble choices, but to exhibit increasing degrees of right skewness. The adapted instrument is used to address the question; does skewness encourage greater or less risk taking? Does the possibility of winning a high-earnings, long shot encourage people into greater or less overall risk taking? It also permits us to confirm, in a controlled environment, that people prefer positive skewness

Face Value

There is growing evidence of systematic heterogeneity in behavior by observable characteristics, such as what one would see in a face. We ask, is there informational value in knowing these characteristics in a strategic interaction? Subjects are given the opportunity to purchase a photograph of their partner in the play of a trust game. Not everyone purchases the photo, even at prices as low as $0.20. Senders (first movers in the game) have a more inelastic demand for pictures than responders (second movers). White senders have a substantially higher demand than nonwhite senders or responders. For responders, there is no difference in demand for pictures across ethnicity or sex. White senders who pay to see the picture of their partner use the information to discriminate, sending significantly less to black responders than to white responders. Overall, responders return a higher percentage of the amount received as offers go up, but they do differentiate that percentage when they see the picture of the sender, returning more to a member of the same ethnicity. A face, it appears, has strategic value, especially for those who will use the information to differentiate their decisions

Giving to Government: Voluntary Taxation in the Lab

In the United States, there is widespread antipathy toward taxation, yet at the same time there are substantial voluntary donations to nonprofit organizations with missions that are parallel to those of many government agencies. In this paper we compare giving in the form of voluntary taxes paid to government agencies with giving in the form of voluntary donations to nonprofit organizations that have similar missions. In a laboratory experimental setting, subjects are given an endowment, and are given the opportunity to donate any part of the endowment to a government agency or to a nonprofit organization. We compare levels of giving to private and government organizations for four different causes (cancer research, disaster relief, education, and parks and wildlife) at three levels of government (federal, state and local). Within a session, subjects make 12 decisions: they complete all six separate decisions for each of two causes, selected randomly from the four listed above. We find that people are not averse to giving to government. On average, they give 22 percent of their budget to government when anonymity is ensured and giving is completely voluntary. However, they do show a preference for nonprofit charities by giving higher amounts for most causes and levels of government. The willingness to give is influenced by the cause and level of the organization, as well as perceptions of the organization

Care provision: An experimental investigation

In many principal-agent settings, the effort provided by the agent benefits a third party. In these settings, the quality of the work is determined, at least in part, by pro-social motivations. We present lab experiments that utilize a new three-player trust game to examine one such setting, care provision. Players include a principal, an agent, and a needy recipient. The principal can transfer resources to an agent, who then can transfer resources to the needy recipient; the latter transfers are tripled. As in the two-player version, we find high, but variable, levels of trust and reciprocity (agent transfers to target) in the baseline game. Two treatments allow us to gauge the impact of potential policy interventions to enhance care of the target recipient. The first provides a budget subsidy to the principle, and the second alters the effectiveness (multiplier) of the agent’s transfers. Results show that the behavior of the agent does not vary by treatment, and is determined primarily by the amount received from the principal. Principals, on the other hand, do respond to the policy changes. While budget subsidies increase the expenditure of the principal only slightly, policies impacting the agent’s efficiency increase the amount entrusted to them by principals and significantly impact the well-being of the recipient. Results suggest that policies that increase the effectiveness of care workers (the agents) may significantly impact the quality of work provided. Examples of such policies include increased worker training and reductions in red tape

Subsidizing Unit Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared

An influential result in the literature on charitable giving is that matching subsidies dominate rebate subsidies in raising funds. We investigate whether this result extends to ‘unit donation’ schemes, a popular alternative form of soliciting donations. There, the donors’ choices are about the number of units of a charitable good to fund at a given unit price, rather than the amount of money to give. Comparing matches and rebates as well as simple discounts on the unit price, we find no evidence of dominance in our online experiment: The three subsidy types are equally effective overall. At a more disaggregate level, rebates lead to a higher likelihood of giving while matching and discount subsidies lead to larger donations by donors. This suggests that charities using a unit donation scheme enjoy additional degrees of freedom in choosing a subsidy type. Rebates merit additional consideration if the primary goal is to attract donors

Inconsistency Pays?: Time-inconsistent subjects and EU violators earn more

Experimental choice data from 881 subjects based on 40 time-tradeoff items and 32 risky choice items reveal that most subjects are time-inconsistent and most violate the axioms of expected utility theory. These inconsistencies cannot be explained by well-known theories of behavioral inconsistency, such as hyperbolic discounting and cumulative prospect theory. Aggregating expected payoffs and the risk associated with each subjects’ 72 choice items, the statistical links between inconsistency and total payoffs are reported. Time-inconsistent subjects and those who violate expected utility theory both earn substantially higher expected payoffs, and these positive associations survive largely undiminished when included together in total payoff regressions. Consistent subjects earn lower than average payoffs because most of them are consistently impatient or consistently risk averse. Positive payoffs from inconsistency cannot, however, be fully explained by greater risk taking. Controlling for the total risk of each subject’s risk choices as well as for socio-economic differences among subjects, time inconsistent subjects earn significantly more money, in statistical and economic terms. So do expected utility violators. Positive returns to inconsistency extend outside the domain in which inconsistencies occurs, with time-inconsistent subjects earning more on risky choice items, and expected utility violators earning more on time-tradeoff items. The results seem to call into question whether axioms of internal consistency—and violations of these axioms that behavioral economists frequently focus on—are economically relevant criteria for evaluating the quality of decision making in human populations