The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains

Outcome editing refers to a set of mental rules that people apply when deciding whether to evaluate multiple outcomes jointly or separately, which subsequently affects choice. In a large-scale online survey (n = 2062) we investigate whether individuals use the same outcome editing rules for financial outcomes (e.g., a lottery win) and social outcomes (e.g., a party with friends). We also test the role of numeric ability in explaining outcome editing. Our results show that people’s preferences for combining or separating events depend on whether those events are in the financial or the social domain. Specifically, individuals were more likely to segregate social outcomes than monetary outcomes, except for when all outcomes were negative. Moreover, numeric ability was associated with preferences for outcome editing in the financial domain but not in the social domain. Our findings extend the understanding of the arithmetic operations underlying outcome editing and suggest that people rely more on calculations when making choices involving multiple financial outcomes and more on feelings when making choices involving social outcomes.     

Separating psychological momentum from strategic momentum: Evidence from men’s professional tennis

In dynamic contests, strategic momentum and psychological momentum potentially coexist, which makes it difficult to distinguish between the two. We employ the setting of professional tennis, which allows us to separate psychological from strategic momentum. In tennis, converting a break point potentially triggers both strategic momentum—due to a change in the relative position of the players—and psychological momentum—due to a change in the perception of the players. To distinguish between these two momentum types, we employ exogenously given interruptions. Interruptions are predicted to affect psychological momentum negatively, while leaving strategic momentum unaffected. Using 4930 game-by-game observations from 141 Grand Slam men’s single matches, we show that the breaking players’ probability of winning a game increases after converting a break point, which provides evidence for momentum. Moreover, we show that this momentum effect is negatively affected by an interruption. Thus, psychological momentum seems to be the main trigger leading to a performance increase after a converted break point.     

A neuroeconomic theory of (dis) honesty

We develop a theory of dishonesty based on neurophysiological evidence that supports the idea of a two-step process in the decision to cheat. Formally, decisions can be processed vía a costless “honest” channel that generates truthful behavior or vía a costly “dishonest” channel that requires attentional resources to trade-off costs and benefits of cheating. In the first step, a decision between these two channels is made based on ex-ante information regarding the expected benefits of cheating. In the second step, decisions are based on the channel that has been selected and, when applicable, the realized benefit of cheating. The model makes novel predictions relative to existing behavioral theories. First, adding external complexity to the decision-making problem (e.g., in the form of multi-tasking) deprives the individual from attentional resources and consequently decreases the propensity to engage in dishonest behavior. Second, higher expectations about the benefits of cheating results in a higher frequency of trial-by-trial cheating for any realized benefit level. Third, multiplicity of equilibria (characterized by different levels of cheating) emerges naturally in the context of illegal markets, in which expected benefits are endogenous.     

Pre-decisional information acquisition: Why do we pay too much for information? Brief report

People tend to acquire more information while making their decisions than a rational and risk-neutral benchmark would predict. We conduct a carefully designed experiment to derive five plausible reasons for pre-decision information overpurchasing. The results show that overpurchasing of information can be almost entirely explained by systematic information processing errors (misestimation or incorrect Bayesian updating), possibly caused by biased intuitive decision processes. Other factors, such as overoptimism about the validity of the new information, risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and curiosity about (irrelevant) information, play at most a minor role. Our results imply that information overacquisitions are mainly driven by the overestimation of the usefulness of additional information.     

How stressful are economic competitions in the lab? An investigation with physiological measures

Competition is ubiquitous in economic life. Yet, negative consequences of competitive environments have been reported and everyday experience suggests that competitive situations can be very stressful. It is, however, an open question whether or not economic competitions in the laboratory indeed elicit physiological stress reactions. Our study examined subjectively perceived stress and physiological changes induced by a well-established economic laboratory competition paradigm (first used in Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007) in a mixed-gender sample of 111 healthy participants. A mental arithmetic task was performed first under a piece rate (i.e., non-competitive) payment scheme and afterwards under a tournament condition. In a third round, participants decided how to be paid (i.e., piece rate or tournament). Our results indicate that compared to a control group, which performed only the non-competitive condition, the competitive game condition elicited subjective and physiological reactions that are indicative of mild stress, i.e., an increase in heart rate and a decrease of calmness and mood. Furthermore, reactions that are thought to reflect an active coping style were related to the self-selection into competition in the third round of the game. We speculate that real-life economic competitions might be even stronger stressors and the way how people cope with this kind of stress might be related to competitiveness in real-life economic contexts.     

Numeracy and wealth

Numeracy is defined as the ability to understand and use numerical information. We examined the relationship between numeracy and wealth using a cross-sectional and a longitudinal study. For a sample of approximately 1000 Dutch adults, we found a statistically significant correlation between numeracy and wealth, even after controlling for differences in education, risk preferences, beliefs about future income, financial knowledge, need for cognition or seeking financial advice. Conditional on socio-demographic characteristics, our estimates suggest that on average a one-point increase in the numeracy score (11-point scale) of the respondent is associated with 5 percent more personal wealth. Additionally, we find that numeracy is a key determinant of the wealth accumulation trajectories that people follow over time. Over a 5-year period, while participants with low numeracy decumulate wealth, participants with high numeracy maintain a constant positive level of wealth.     

The bomb-crater effect of tax audits: Beyond the misperception of chance

The experimental literature has identified the Bomb Crater Effect (BoCE), i.e., the fact that tax compliance drops immediately after a taxpayer is audited. From a theoretical perspective, BoCE has been explained either by the misperception of chance, also known as the gambler’s fallacy, or by the loss repair effect. The aim of this paper is to look more closely at the former. We run a laboratory experiment in which the information set is relatively rich but the implementation of the Bayesian updating process is fairly simple. By doing so, we are able to elicit a range of consistent but heterogeneous probability beliefs and to distinguish between Bayesian and non-Bayesian subjects. We obtain two major results concerning Bayesian subjects. First, they exhibit a strong and robust short-run BoCE. Second, they are seemingly not affected by the audits of other taxpayers in their compliance decision. These results are robust to different definitions of Bayesianity as well as to different specifications and conflict with the evidence that Bayesian agents correctly perceive the chance of being audited. In turn, these findings suggest that the existing explanations of the BoCE are not satisfactory and that alternative theories are needed.     

Do as I Say,Don’t Do as I Do: Differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems

Many people judge that it is permissible to harm one person in order to save many in some circumstances but not in others: it matters how the harm comes about. Researchers have used trolley problems to investigate this phenomenon, eliciting moral judgments or behavioral predictions about hypothetical scenarios where five people can be saved at the cost of harming one other person. We operationalized trolley problems in the laboratory, with economic incentives and real-life consequences, allowing us to observe not only judgments but actual decisions. We varied whether the five were saved by clicking a switch that diverted the harm to the one or by dragging the one in front of the harm. We found differences in moral judgments between the two tasks, but no differences in behavior. The judgments of actors and observers also differed, with observers judging it more right to act. Our results suggest that the difference between moral judgments and actions arises because participants think that doing the right action still involves doing something morally discreditable, and that the morality of taking action does not exhaust the normative reasons for acting.     

From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior

This article presents a short review of dual-process and dual-system theories from social and cognitive psychology and comments on their relevance for research on economic behavior. We view dual-process theories as a theoretical scaffolding which helps structure and interpret experimental results and can deliver important insights on human behavior in economic contexts. Dual-process ideas and concepts have already started to percolate into economics, contributing to the behavioral turn and the incorporation of bounded rationality into economic theory. The most recent development in this direction is represented by multiple selves models, which we view as a promising first step. We conclude the article with a brief discussion of the remaining articles in the special issue.