Our study contributes to the literature on choice shifts in group decision-making by analyzing how the level of risk-taking within a group is influenced by its gender composition. In particular, we investigate experimentally whether group composition affects how preferences ‘shift’ when comparing individual and group choices. Consistent with hypotheses derived from previous literature, we show that male-dominated groups shift toward riskier decisions in a way that is not explained by any simple preference aggregation mechanism. We discuss potential channels for the observed pattern of choice shifts.

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in motivated memory as a psychological determinant of economic outcomes. According to motivated memory, people tend to better recall pleasant information because it serves their psychological needs. Another phenomenon, however, predicts the same pattern: According to mood congruence, pleasant information is easier to recall for individuals in nonnegative mood, regardless of any psychological needs. Since most people tend to have some need for self-esteem and to experience more positive than negative feelings during the day, the two phenomena predict similar outcomes in most ordinary situations, but not all. To test the predictive power of these two phenomena, we collect data from a laboratory experiment and from a nationally representative survey. We study how individuals in a temporarily induced negative mood (via a video clip) or those who report a low baseline mood (relative to the population) recall negative feedback. Our results meet the predictions of motivated memory: Individuals better recall positive than negative feedback, even when they are in negative mood. Motivated memory is not just a matter of mood.

We present a simple and robustly incentive-compatible price list methodology to elicit quantiles of a subjective real-valued belief. These elicited quantiles can be employed to approximate a subject’s complete subjective distribution, and we establish that the distribution maximizing entropy while adhering to the elicited quantiles is piecewise linear. Using this approach, our methodology extends to estimating arbitrary unobserved attributes of the subjective distribution, such as mean and variance, which are otherwise challenging to elicit. We provide a proof-of-concept for our framework through an experiment involving the elicitation of participants’ beliefs regarding the mathematical abilities of their peers.

While almost all charities rely on a set of donor appreciation strategies, their effectiveness for the success of fundraising campaigns is underresearched. Through two preregistered field studies conducted in collaboration with a leading German opera house (N = 10,000), we explore the significance of expressing gratitude and examine two different approaches to doing so. Our first study investigates the impact of a ‘thank you in advance’ statement in fundraising letters, a common strategy among fundraisers. In the second study, we explore the effectiveness of handwritten thankyou postcards versus printed postcards, shedding light on the roles of personalization and handwriting in donor appeals. Our findings challenge conventional wisdom, revealing that neither ‘thank you in advance’ nor handwritten thank you notes significantly affect donor contributions.

We study how competition impacts security-bid auctions by comparing Monopolistic and Competitive auctions. Sellers choose their security designs between debt and equity, and buyers select auctions based on sellers’ choices. We find that an auction’s security design has limited influence on revenue under monopoly, whereas equity substantially increases revenue under competition due to equity attracting more bidders. Despite this, sellers’ rate of choosing equity does not differ between the treatments. While theory suggests that security choice when acting as a buyer should be negatively correlated to one’s choice as a seller, we find the empirical correlation to be positive.

Reverse auctions, also known as procurement auctions, are used in various fields by public or corporate buyers to purchase goods and services from multiple sellers at the best price. Unlike in selling auctions, in reverse auctions a budget constraint rather than a target quantity is often announced by the auctioneer. However, in auction theory no equilibrium bidding strategy has yet been found in the case when a budget constraint is announced. Here we compare the two auction formats in an online experiment with 329 participants. We use the strategy method to obtain participants’ bidding strategies from which we run exhaustive simulations of auction outcomes to define equivalent target and budget constraints. This original methodology allows to overcome the issue of randomness of the auction outcome related to bidders’ values and to compare the two formats in a rigorous way. When each bidder has a single unit to sell, from the buyer’s perspective, we find that, on average, the budget-constrained auction format outperforms the target-constrained auction format.

We experimentally study how individuals strategically disclose multidimensional information to a Naive Bayes algorithm trained to guess their characteristics. Subjects’ objective is to minimize the algorithm’s accuracy in guessing a target characteristic. We vary what participants know about the algorithm’s functioning and how obvious are the correlations between the target and other characteristics. Optimal disclosure strategies rely on subjects identifying whether the combination of their characteristics is common or not. Information about the algorithm functioning makes subjects identify correlations they otherwise do not see but also overthink. Overall, this information decreases the frequency of optimal disclosure strategies.

This paper analyzes individual behavior in multi-armed bandit problems. We use a between-subjects experiment to implement four bandit problems that vary based on the horizon (indefinite or finite) and the number of bandit arms (two or three). We analyze commonly suggested strategies and find that an overwhelming majority of subjects are best fit by either a probabilistic “win-stay lose-shift” strategy or reinforcement learning. However, we show that subjects violate the assumptions of the probabilistic win-stay lose-shift strategy as switching depends on more than the previous outcome. We design two new “biased” strategies that adapt either reinforcement learning or myopic quantal response by incorporating a bias toward choosing the previous arm. We find that a majority of subjects are best fit by one of these two strategies but also find heterogeneity in subjects’ best-fitting strategies. We show that the performance of our biased strategies is robust to adapting popular strategies from other literatures (e.g., EWA and I-SAW) and using different selection criteria. Additionally, we find that our biased strategies best fit a majority of subjects when analyzing a new treatment with a new set of subjects.

An abundance of statistics has shown gender disparity in hiring decisions. This paper shows that a previously unexplored factor, the decision-making process utilized by a hiring committee, plays a crucial role. Using a laboratory experiment, we find that gender disparity is eliminated when hiring decisions are made unanimously by a group. By comparison, we find that gender disparity is largest when decisions are made by a leader who volunteers. We do not find evidence of heterogeneity by gender as the results persist regardless of the number of women in the group or the leader’s gender. The experimental design allows us to rule out several possible mechanisms including differences in leadership characteristics and communication styles.

Many societies allocate wealth and status through competitions. These competitions may be seen as unfair if the playing field is uneven or if the competitors are of unequal strength. We run two experiments to document the extent to which people are willing to compete against others in situations with varying fairness concerns. In a between-subject experiment, we show that people’s willingness to compete is largely unaffected by the impact their choice has on the payoff of an opponent, no matter whether the opponent had a choice about whether to compete or not. In a within-subject experiment, we show that most people are willing to compete against opponents who have been exogenously disadvantaged or are known to be weaker. People who choose competition against weak or disadvantaged opponents are also more willing to give themselves an advantage by sabotaging the performance of their opponent.