Theoretical insights dominate the literature examining the incentive compatibility of payment mechanisms. Despite their elegance, theoretical insights are rarely empirically validated. We fill this gap by empirically exploring the effects of frequently used payment mechanisms using a collective sample of over 3000 participants across two experiments. In Experiment 1, we obtained offer prices to sell a card, systematically varying between-subjects the way subjects received payments over repeated rounds, by either paying for all decisions (and various modifications) or just one, as well as making the payments certain, probabilistic, or purely hypothetical. While we find that the magnitude of the induced value and the range of the prices used to draw a random price significantly affect misbidding behavior, neither the payment mechanism nor the certainty of payment affected misbidding. In Experiment 2, we replaced the BDM mechanism with a Second Price-Auction and found similar results, albeit lower rates of misbidding behavior. Overall, our empirical exercise shows that theoretically relevant elements do not produce empirical differences, while design choices that are theoretically irrelevant produce empirical differences. As such, payment mechanism design considerations should carefully consider the choice architecture in addition to incentive compatibility.

We develop and validate a survey instrument to elicit six key economic preferences in children: undefined time preferences, risk preferences, altruism, positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity, and trust. The survey was administered to a sample of 339 nine-year-old children, for whom we also collected behavioral data through incentivized choice experiments targeting the same preferences. Our econometric analysis allows us to identify a set of 14 survey items that best predict children’s experimental behavior. For each preference, we also compare the predictive power of this 14-item validated survey to a shorter 9-item self-evaluation version. Our results demonstrate that these surveys provide a simple and reliable tool for measuring individual preferences in children – enabling researchers to account for heterogeneity when designing and evaluating policies targeting younger populations.

Agents frequently engage with multiple principals simultaneously – for example, when borrowing from several banks or peers. In such settings, principals typically possess less information about the agent’s ability or intentions (e.g., to repay a loan) and must rely on trust. This paper presents experimental evidence from trust games framed in a credit market context to examine the role of reciprocity in interactions involving multiple principals (lenders) and a single agent (borrower). Agents were asked to decide whether to act trustworthily and repay, or to default and act selfishly, after receiving the same credit amount from either one or multiple principals. The results show that reciprocity declines when the number of trusting principals increases. A key mechanism appears to be the reduced marginal harm that an agent’s default imposes on each individual principal. Additionally, agents seem less sensitive to the negative consequences of their actions when multiple principals are affected. These findings suggest that interactions involving multiple principals are behaviorally riskier than bilateral ones. The results have implications for the design of incentive structures in multi-principal-agent environments, such as crowdlending platforms.

Across three studies involving more than 5,000 participants, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of incentivizing responses in the Krupka-Weber norm elicitation task. We consider both the potential benefits of incentivization (higher response quality and mitigation of response biases) and its possible drawbacks (distortion of responses in the direction of norm-unrelated focal points and materialistic values). We find no evidence of undesirable effects of incentives. While we report only modest improvements in response quality, we also show that incentives effectively mitigate response biases that arise when participants’ self-serving motivations conflict with accurate responding.

Recent studies showing that some outcome variables do not statistically significantly differ between real-stakes and hypothetical-stakes conditions have raised methodological challenges to experimental economics’ disciplinary norm that experimental choices should be incentivized with real stakes. I show that the hypothetical bias measures estimated in these studies do not econometrically identify the hypothetical biases that matter in most modern experiments. Specifically, traditional hypothetical bias measures are fully informative in ‘elicitation experiments’ where the researcher is uninterested in treatment effects (TEs). However, in ‘intervention experiments’ where TEs are of interest, traditional hypothetical bias measures are uninformative; real stakes matter if and only if TEs differ between stakes conditions. I demonstrate that traditional hypothetical bias measures are often misleading estimates of hypothetical bias for intervention experiments, both econometrically and through re-analyses of three recent hypothetical bias experiments. The fact that a given experimental outcome does not statistically significantly differ on average between stakes conditions does not imply that all TEs on that outcome are unaffected by hypothetical stakes. Therefore, the recent hypothetical bias literature does not justify abandoning real stakes in most modern experiments. Maintaining norms that favor completely or probabilistically providing real stakes for experimental choices is useful for ensuring externally valid TEs in experimental economics.