Search

We use a series of experiments to understand whether and how people’s beliefs about their own abilities are biased relative to the Bayesian benchmark and how these beliefs then affect behavior. We find that subjects systematically and substantially overweight positive feedback relative to negative (asymmetry) and also update too little overall (conservatism). These biases are substantially less pronounced in an ego-free control experiment. Updating does retain enough of the structure of Bayes’ rule to let us model it coherently in an optimizing framework, in which, interestingly, asymmetry and conservatism emerge as complementary biases. We also find that exogenous changes in beliefs affect subjects’ decisions to enter into a competition and do so similarly for more and less biased subjects, suggesting that people cannot “undo” their biases when the time comes to decide. This paper was accepted by Axel Ockenfels, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: Financial support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Harvard University, and Wesleyan University is gratefully acknowledged. P. Niehaus received financial support from an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4294 .

We present a lab-field experiment designed to systematically assess the external validity of social preferences elicited in a variety of experimental games. We do this by comparing behavior in the different games with several behaviors elicited in the field and with self-reported behaviors exhibited in the past, using the same sample of participants. Our results show that the experimental social preference games do a poor job explaining both social behaviors in the field and social behaviors from the past. We also include a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous literature on the external validity of social preference games. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908 . This paper was accepted by John List, behavioral economics.

This paper reports the results from a controlled field experiment designed to investigate the causal effect of unannounced, public recognition on employee performance. We hired more than 300 employees to work on a three-hour data-entry task. In a random sample of work groups, workers unexpectedly received recognition after two hours of work. We find that recognition increases subsequent performance substantially, and particularly when recognition is exclusively provided to the best performers. Remarkably, workers who did not receive recognition are mainly responsible for this performance increase. Our results are consistent with workers having a preference for conformity and being reciprocal at the same time. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2291 . This paper was accepted by John List, behavioral economics.

This discussion paper resulted in an article in Management Science . Volume 59 issue 7, pages 1514-1528. This paper reports on a field experiment conducted to estimate the impact of the share of women in business teams on their performance. Teams consisting of undergraduate students in business studies start up a venture as part of their curriculum. We manipulated the gender composition of teams and assigned students randomly to teams, conditional on their gender. We find that teams with an equal gender mix perform better than male-dominated teams in terms of sales and profits. We explore various mechanisms suggested in the literature to explain this positive effect of gender diversity on performance (including complementarities, learning, monitoring, and conflicts) but find no support for them.

Recent discoveries in behavioral economics have led to important new insights concerning what can happen in markets. Such gains in knowledge have come primarily via laboratory experiments—a missing piece of the puzzle in many cases is parallel evidence drawn from naturally occurring field counterparts. We provide a small movement in this direction by taking advantage of a unique opportunity to work with a Chinese high-tech manufacturing facility. Our study revolves around using insights gained from one of the most influential lines of behavioral research—framing manipulations—in an attempt to increase worker productivity in the facility. Using a natural field experiment, we report several insights. For example, conditional incentives framed as both “losses” and “gains” increase productivity for both individuals and teams. In addition, teams more acutely respond to bonuses posed as losses than as comparable bonuses posed as gains. The magnitude of this framing effect is roughly 1%: that is, total team productivity is enhanced by 1% purely due to the framing manipulation. Importantly, we find that neither the framing nor the incentive effect lose their significance over time; rather, the effects are observed over the entire sample period. Moreover, we learn that repeated interaction with workers and conditionality of the bonus contract are substitutes for sustenance of incentive effects in the long run. This paper was accepted by Gérard P. Cachon, decision analysis.

This study investigates loss aversion when the reference point is a state-dependent random variable. This case describes, for example, a money manager being evaluated relative to a risky benchmark index rather than a fixed target return level. Using a state-dependent structure, prospects are more (less) attractive if they depend positively (negatively) on the reference point. In addition, the structure avoids an inherent aversion to risky prospects and yields no losses when the prospect and the reference point are the same. Related to this, the optimal reference-dependent solution equals the optimal consumption solution (no loss aversion) when the reference point is selected completely endogenously. Given that loss aversion is widespread, we conclude that the reference point generally includes an important exogenously fixed component. For example, the typical investment benchmark index is externally fixed by the investment principal for the duration of the investment mandate. We develop a choice model where adjustment costs cause stickiness relative to an initial exogenous reference point.