When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation

This paper is about satisficing behaviour. Rather tautologically, this is when decision-makers are satisfied with achieving some objective, rather than in obtaining the best outcome. The term was coined by Simon (Q J Econ 69:99–118, 1955), and has stimulated many discussions and theories. Prominent amongst these theories are models of incomplete preferences, models of behaviour under ambiguity, theories of rational inattention, and search theories. Most of these, however, seem to lack an answer to at least one of two key questions: when should the decision-maker (DM) satisfice; and how should the DM satisfice. In a sense, search models answer the latter question (in that the theory tells the DM when to stop searching), but not the former; moreover, usually the question as to whether any search at all is justified is left to a footnote. A recent paper by Manski (Theory Decis. doi: 10.1007/s11238-017-9592-1, 2017) fills the gaps in the literature and answers the questions: when and how to satisfice? He achieves this by setting the decision problem in an ambiguous situation (so that probabilities do not exist, and many preference functionals can therefore not be applied) and by using the Minimax Regret criterion as the preference functional. The results are simple and intuitive. This paper reports on an experimental test of his theory. The results show that some of his propositions (those relating to the ‘how’) appear to be empirically valid while others (those relating to the ‘when’) are less so.     

Not so cheap talk: costly and discrete communication

We model an interaction between an informed sender and an uninformed receiver. As in the classic cheap talk setup, the informed player sends a message to an uninformed receiver who is to take an action which affects the payoffs of both players. However, in our model, the sender can communicate only through the use of discrete messages which are ordered by the cost incurred by the sender. We characterize the resulting equilibria without refining out-of-equilibrium beliefs. Subsequently, we apply an adapted version of the no incentive to separate (NITS) condition to our model. We show that if the sender and receiver have aligned preferences regarding the action of the receiver, then NITS only admits the equilibrium with the largest possible number of induced actions. When the preferences between players are not aligned, we show that NITS does not guarantee uniqueness, and we provide an example where an increase in communication costs can improve communication. As we show, this improvement can occur to such an extent that the equilibrium outperforms the Goltsman et al. (J Econ Theory 144:1397–1420, 2009) upper bound for receiver’s payoffs in mediated communication.     

Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: an experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks

The Savage and the Anscombe–Aumann frameworks are the two most popular approaches used when modeling ambiguity. The former is more flexible, but the latter is often preferred for its simplicity. We conduct an experiment where subjects place bets on the joint outcome of an ambiguous urn and a fair coin. We document that more than a third of our subjects make choices that are incompatible with Anscombe–Aumann for any preferences, while the Savage framework is flexible enough to account for subjects’ behaviors.

     

The joy of ruling: an experimental investigation on collective giving

We analyse team dictator games with different voting mechanisms in the laboratory. Individuals vote to select a donation for all group members. Standard Bayesian analysis makes the same prediction for all three mechanisms: participants should cast the same vote regardless of the voting mechanism used to determine the common donation level. Our experimental results show that subjects fail to choose the same vote. We show that their behaviour is consistent with a joy of ruling: individuals get an extra utility when they determine the voting outcome.     

Individual vs. couple behavior: an experimental investigation of risk preferences

In this article, we elicit both individuals’ and couples’ preferences assuming prospect theory (PT) as a general theoretical framework for decision under risk. Our experimental method, based on certainty equivalents, allows to infer measurements of utility and probability weighting at the individual level and at the couple level. Our main results are twofold. First, risk attitude for couples is compatible with PT and incorporates deviations from expected utility similar to those found in individual decision making. Second, couples’ attitudes towards risk are found to be consistent with a mix of individual attitudes, women being more influent on couples’ preferences at low probability levels.     

Rent Control: its Costly Repercussions

This article examines the theory and practice of rent control in the UK and elsewhere in order to contribute to the important debate on the future of the private rental sector in the UK. Our opposition to rent and eviction controls is unequivocal. We shall show that wherever rent control has been imposed the effects have been, at best, adverse and at worst, appalling. The effects on the quantity and quality of a housing stock can be so devastating that one Swedish socialist economist, Assar Lindbeck (1967) concluded: “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.” Controls which lead to an excess demand for housing foster unfortunate practices such a discrimination on various grounds other than willingness and ability to pay rent, and the creation of a black market. Rent and eviction controls also have a major impact on the mobility of labour. The encouragement to immobility can lead to the perpetuation of structural imbalances in an economy prompting rigidities which can have considerable economic and social costs.     

Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time

This paper examines the importance of aspirations as reference points in a multi-period decision-making context. After stating their personal aspiration level, 172 individuals made six sequential decisions among risky prospects as part of a choice experiment. The results show that individuals make different risky-choices in a multi-period compared to a single-period setting. In particular, individuals’ aspiration level is their main reference point during the early stages of decision-making, while their starting status (wealth level at the start of the experiment) becomes the central reference point during the later stages of their multi-period decision-making.     

Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation

This paper reports the results of experiments testing prevalence of non-neutral ambiguity attitudes and how these attitudes change as a result of interpersonal interactions. To address the first question we conducted experiments involving individual choice between betting on ambiguous and unambiguous events of the subject’s choice. We found that a large majority of subjects display ambiguity neutral attitudes, many others display ambiguity incoherent attitudes, and few subjects display either ambiguity-averse attitudes or ambiguity-seeking attitudes. To address the second question we designed a new experiment with a built-in incentive to persuade. We found that interpersonal interactions without incentives to persuade have no effect on behavior. However, when incentives were introduced, the ambiguity neutral subjects were better able to persuade ambiguity seeking and ambiguity incoherent subjects to adopt ambiguity neutral choice behavior and, to a lesser extent, also ambiguity averse subjects.     

Parental communication about emotional contexts: Differences across discrete categories of emotion

Parent socialization of emotion is critical for children's emotional development. One mechanism through which parents socialize emotional understanding is in their conversations about emotions with their children. Previous research has investigated parent–child discourse about emotions differing by positive and negative valence. This study examined how parents communicated about and differentially emphasized elements of discrete emotion contexts (anger, sadness, disgust, fear, joy). Caregivers described images of emotional contexts to their 18‐month‐old or 24‐month‐old infant. Findings indicated that parents talked more about sadness images than joy images. Furthermore, parents mentioned the emoter more in anger and sadness contexts and talked about the referent more in disgust, fear, and joy contexts. Parents also posed more questions to female than male infants, particularly when discussing anger, sadness, and disgust images. No age differences were observed for any measure. These findings provide new insight into how parents talk about and highlight aspects of discrete emotional contexts.     

Learning under uncertainty with multiple priors: experimental investigation

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty - We run an experiment to compare belief formation and learning under ambiguity and under compound risk at the individual level. We estimate a four-type mixture...     

Focal points in pure coordination games: An experimental investigation

This paper reports an experimental investigation of the hypothesis that in coordination games, players draw on shared concepts of salience to identify focal points on which they can coordinate. The experiment involves games in which equilibria can be distinguished from one another only in terms of the way strategies are labelled. The games are designed to test a number of specific hypotheses about the determinants of salience. These hypotheses are generally confirmed by the results of the experiment.     

Temporal discounting of gains and losses of time: An experimental investigation

This paper investigates “asymmetries” between non-monetary gains and losses in intertemporal choice. We considered gains and losses of spare/working time with respect to a reference duration defined in a working contract. Specifically, we elicited a behavioral model of intertemporal choice that accounts for a gain/loss-dependent discounting function and a reference-dependent utility. Additionally, we did not impose preference for the present (positive discounting) and allowed for both decreasing and increasing impatience. While our results are standard regarding the discount of money (our baseline treatment), our subjects heavily discounted gains of time. More patience was observed for losses of time and a sizable portion of subjects even exhibited negative discounting, i.e. they preferred to expedite losses of time. Our econometric estimations also reveal a much larger heterogeneity of behavior in terms of both utility and discounting for gains and losses of spare time as compared to money.     

At the nexus of risk and time preferences: An experimental investigation

Although many economic decisions involve choices between uncertain outcomes occurring at different times, most theoretical and empirical work restricts attention to one dimension or another. In this paper, we investigate whether both risk and time preferences can be represented by a single parameter. We collect experimental data to estimate models which allows for a disentanglement of risk and time preferences. Results reveal that the discounted expected utility model assumption, that risk and time preferences can be explained by a single parameter, is not supported by the data. The model estimates imply people prefer to delay the resolution of risky outcomes.     

Min- and Max-induced rankings: an experimental study

The current paper is the first to report an experimental study of “Min- and Max-induced rankings” (MMIR), i.e., a family of set rankings that require preferences over sets to be induced from comparison of the best and/or worst elements within those sets. These MMIR do not perform well in predicting preferences over simple sets of monetary outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the axiomatic underpinnings of these models by means of pairwise choice experiments. From this investigation, some important conclusions can be drawn: Axioms that prevent rankings to be based on total-goodness, as well as monotonicity conditions (ensuring that replacing a set element with a better one results in a better set) cannot be refuted. Axioms that rule out any utilization of the relative difference in the values of the outcomes and axioms that prevent rankings to be based on average-goodness are all systematically violated. The Uniform Expected Utility (UEU) criterion seems to meet the apparent shortcomings of the MMIR. Some frequently occurring preference patterns, however, suggest that a significant portion of the participants uses neither a Min- or Max-induced ranking, nor UEU, but some other unspecified decision rule, possibly characterized by the tendency to prefer a diversification of uncertainty.     

Strategic ambiguity and decision-making: an experimental study

We conducted a set of experiments to compare the effect of ambiguity in single-person decisions and games. Our results suggest that ambiguity has a bigger impact in games than in ball and urn problems. We find that ambiguity has the opposite effect in games of strategic substitutes and complements. This confirms a theoretical prediction made by Eichberger and Kelsey (J Econ Theory 106:436–466, 2002). In addition, we note that subjects’ ambiguity attitudes appear to be context dependent: ambiguity loving in single-person decisions and ambiguity averse in games. This is consistent with the findings of Kelsey and le Roux (Theory Decis 79:667–688, 2015).     

Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect

Several theories explain the common ratio effect as a probability effect resulting from properties of individuals' preference orderings over probability distributions of consequences. In contrast, regret theory explains it as the result of changes in the juxtaposition of consequences in the action/state matrix. This article reports an experiment that allowed probability effects and juxtaposition effects to be separately identified for some common ratio problems, some of which involved real gains and others, real losses. The main finding is that changes in the juxtaposition of consequences have systematic effects on choices in the direction predicted by regret theory.University of East Anglia     

Investor Responses to IMF Program Suspensions: Is Noncompliance Costly?*

Objective. This article reinvestigates the “catalytic” effects of IMF programs on investment controlling for the implementation of the program, allowing us to ascertain if capital markets respond to the mere announcement of a Fund program or its sustained positive implementation. Methods. Using a panel of data based on the experience of 106 developing countries entering Fund programs between 1979 and 1995, I employ both probit and tobit estimations to assess the effects of the announcement of a Fund program (and performance under it) on inflows of portfolio investment. Results. I find mixed evidence that good implementation serves to slow capital flight. I find consistently strong evidence that failed Fund programs produce portfolio flight. Conclusion. The findings suggest that we should think about the Fund's influence (both positive and negative) in light of how capital markets respond to its signals.     

An experimental investigation of risk sharing and adverse selection

Does adverse selection hamper the effectiveness of voluntary risk sharing? How do differences in risk profiles affect adverse selection? We experimentally investigate individuals’ willingness to share risks with others. Across treatments we vary how risk profiles differ between individuals. We find strong evidence for adverse selection if individuals’ risk profiles can be ranked according to first-order stochastic dominance and only little evidence for adverse selection if risk profiles can only be ranked according to mean-preserving spreads. We observe the same pattern also for anticipated adverse selection. These results suggest that the degree to which adverse selection erodes voluntary risk sharing arrangements crucially depends on the form of risk heterogeneity.     

Entitlement and the efficiency-equality trade-off: an experimental study

When randomly assigning participants to experimental roles and the according payment prospects, participants seem to receive “manna from heaven.” In our view, this seriously questions the validity of laboratory findings. We depart from this by auctioning off player roles via the incentive compatible random price mechanism thus avoiding the selection effect of competitive second price auctions. Our experiment employs the generosity game where the proposer chooses the size of the pie, facing an exogenously given own agreement payoff, and the responder is the residual claimant. We find that entitlement crowds out equality seeking and strengthens efficiency seeking. More generally, we find that inducing entitlement for the roles in which participants find themselves makes a difference. Interpreting participants’ willingness to pay for their role as their aspiration level further allows to test satisficing and explore “mutual satisficing.” We find that responder participants apparently do not anticipate proposer generosity in aspiration formation.