The Next-Birthday Method of Respondent Selection

Four procedures for selecting telephone survey respondents withina household unit—Troldahl-Carter, male/female alternation,next-birthday, and no-selection methods—were comparedin a small-sample survey. The data indicate that the next birthdaymethod is a relatively efficient procedure for selecting a samplethat is representative of all household members.     

ROBUSTNESS OF BIDDER PREFERENCES AMONG AUCTION INSTITUTIONS

In previous work, we found that bidders strongly prefer the ascending to the first‐price sealed‐bid auction on a ceteris paribus basis, but perhaps surprisingly, they are not willing to pay up to an entry price for the ascending auction that would equalize the profits. Risk aversion was proposed as an explanation. In this study, we examine two alternative explanations for the observed behavior: loss aversion and aversion to the dynamic bidding process. We find that neither alternative explanation can account for bidders’ auction choice behavior, leaving risk aversion as the only unfalsified hypothesis. (JEL C91, D44)     

WHAT MOTIVATES POLITICAL PREFERENCES? SELF‐INTEREST,IDEOLOGY, AND FAIRNESS IN A LABORATORY DEMOCRACY

Substantial prior literature has established that subjects in laboratory experiments are typically willing to sacrifice their own well being to make financial allocations more equal among participants. We test the applicability of this result in an environment that contains some of the key contextual issues that are usually excluded from more abstract games, but which might be important in situations involving income redistribution. Our general finding is that votes for a redistributive tax are almost entirely in accordance with self‐interest: above‐average earners vote for low tax rates and below‐average earners vote for high tax rates. A measure of subjects' preferences for fairness or equality, their self‐reported economic ideology, is not directly related to their voting behavior in this experiment. Because the ideology measure should be correlated with any intrinsic preferences regarding inequality aversion, we conclude that any preferences for fairness or inequality that our subjects possess are not strong enough to overcome self‐interest in this context. We do, however, find evidence for a possible indirect effect of ideology on choice behavior in that more conservative subjects tend to be more responsive to their self‐interest than the more liberal subjects. (JEL C90, D63)