An individual reports subjective beliefs over continuous events using a proper scoring rule, such as the Quadratic Scoring Rule. Under mild additional assumptions, it is known that these reports reflect latent subjective beliefs if the individual is risk neutral. We demonstrate how to fully recover latent subjective beliefs if the individual is known to distort probabilities into decision weights using Rank Dependent Utility theory, and generalize all results for the complete class of proper scoring rules. As an immediate corollary, we can then exactly recover latent subjective beliefs using Expected Utility Theory. Using Bayesian econometric methods, we demonstrate how to recover belief distributions for individuals, and illustrate these results by recovering belief distributions about the “competitiveness” of individuals and the addictiveness of smoking. These results significantly widen the domain of applicability of proper scoring rules for eliciting latent subjective belief distributions.

Although theory and observational work suggest that affective polarization should shape citizens’ support for democratic norms, experimental tests of this causal claim largely find null effects. Most studies assume any impact would be immediate and rely on one-shot manipulations. Yet democratic norms are sticky; brief shifts in partisan feelings may be too weak or fleeting to move them. I therefore test whether repeated treatments over several waves of a survey shift affective polarization and, in turn, support for democratic norms. I find no significant first-stage effects: the treatments do not change respondents’ affective polarization, so repeated exposures do not cumulatively move it and downstream effects on norms cannot be identified. I conclude by considering why my findings differ from studies that report significant effects for similar treatments. Many experiments measure affective polarization as hostility toward the outparty, whereas this study and observational work conceptualize it as the gap between inparty and outparty evaluations.

Economic sanctions are a critical tool of international diplomacy. Existing scholarship shows that citizens in democratic sender states value sanctions that are effective in producing policy concessions. However, they also seek to limit the adverse humanitarian consequences of sanction imposition. How do citizens trade off these objectives against each other? We develop a theory of sanctions preferences where citizens (1) value policy concessions, (2) hold humanitarian motivations and (3) hold beliefs about how policy change occurs in autocracies. We argue that citizens are conditional humanitarians – humanitarian concerns dominate effectiveness considerations only if policy concessions are unlikely. Results from a pre-registered willingness-to-pay experiment examining the preferences of German citizens on sanctions against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine confirm the predictions of our theory.

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.

The role of natural language communication in economic exchange has been the focus of substantial experimental analysis. Recently, scholars have taken the important step of investigating whether certain types of communication (e.g., promises) might affect decisions differently than other types of communication. This requires classifying natural language messages. Unfortunately, no broadly-accepted method is available for this purpose. We here describe a coordination game for classification of natural language messages. The game is similar in spirit to the “ESP” game that has proven successful for the classification of tens of millions of internet images. We compare our approach to self-classification as well as to classifications based on a standard content analysis. We argue that our classification game has advantages over those alternative approaches, and that these advantages might stem from the salient rewards earned by our game's participants.

Eliciting the level of risk aversion of experimental subjects is of crucial concern to experimenters. In the literature there are a variety of methods used for such elicitation; the concern of the experiment reported in this paper is to compare them. The methods we investigate are the following: Holt–Laury price lists; pairwise choices, the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak method; allocation questions. Clearly their relative efficiency in measuring risk aversion depends upon the numbers of questions asked; but the method itself may well influence the estimated risk-aversion. While it is impossible to determine a ‘best’ method (as the truth is unknown) we can look at the differences between the different methods. We carried out an experiment in four parts, corresponding to the four different methods, with 96 subjects. In analysing the data our methodology involves fitting preference functionals; we use four, Expected Utility and Rank-Dependent Expected Utility, each combined with either a CRRA or a CARA utility function. Our results show that the inferred level of risk aversion is more sensitive to the elicitation method than to the assumed-true preference functional. Experimenters should worry most about context.

We use experimental methods to evaluate a simplified interbank market. The design is a laboratory adaptation of the analysis of interbank market fragility by Allen and Gale (J Eur Econ Assoc 2:1015–1048), and features symmetric banks who allocate deposit endowments between cash and illiquid assets prior to the incidence of a shock. Following the shock liquidity-deficient banks trade assets for cash. Treatments include variations in the shock type, as well as alterations in the range of permissible asset prices. Consistent with Allen and Gale, we find that while interbank trading substantially increases investment activity, the markets are frequently characterized by price variability and a stochastic distribution of investment outcomes.

In this paper we report the results of additional exchange ultimatum game experiments conducted at the same time as the exchange ultimatum game experiments reported in Hoffman et al. (Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), pp. 346-380, 1994). In these additional experiments, we use instructions to change an impersonal exchange situation to a personal exchange situation. To do this, we prompt sellers to consider what choices their buyers will make. Game theory would predict that thinking about the situation would lead sellers to make smaller offers to buyers. In contrast, we find a significant increase in seller offers to buyers. This result suggests that encouraging sellers to thinking about buyer choices focuses their attention on the strategic interaction with humans who think they way they do in personal exchange situations, and who may punish them for unacceptable behavior, and not on the logic of the game theoretic structure of the problem.

Many experiments investigating different decision theories have relied heavily on pairwise choices between lotteries. These are easy to incentivise, but often yield only limited dichotomous information. This paper considers whether respondents’ judgments about their strength of preference (SoP) for one alternative over another can usefully supplement standard choice data. We report extensive evidence that such judgments show sensitivity to variations in question format and parameter values in the directions we should expect, not only within-subject but also between-sample. We illustrate how such judgments can usefully supplement standard pairwise choice data and enrich our understanding of observed behaviour.

In certain markets success may depend on how well participants anticipate the behavior of other participants who have varying amounts of experience. Understanding if and how people's behavior depends on competitors’ level of experience is important since in most markets participants have varying amounts of experience. Examining data from two new experimental studies similar to the beauty contest game first studied by Nagel (1995), the results indicate that (1) players with no experience behave the same against competitors with and without experience but (2) players quickly learn to condition their behavior on competitors’ experience level, causing (3) behavior to stop moving toward the equilibrium whenever new players enter the game and (4) experienced players to earn more money than less experienced players. The paper discusses the implications of the results for understanding and modeling behavior in markets in which participants have different amounts of experience.

Cason and Plott (J Polit Econ, 122(6):1235–1270, 2014) show that subjects’ misconception about the incentive properties of the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) value elicitation procedure can generate data patterns that look like—and might thus be misinterpreted as evidence for—preferences constructed from endowments or reference points. We test whether game form misconceptions are necessary to produce willingness-to-pay (WTP) vs. willingness-to-accept (WTA) gaps in a valuation experiment in which subjects are randomly assigned to the role of either buyer or seller. We employ a design that allows us to identify whether a subject understood the incentive properties of a price-list version of the BDM mechanism. We find a robust WTP-WTA gap, even among subjects whose elicited valuations for a good of induced and known monetary value and whose ability to identify the payoffs resulting from their choices indicate an understanding of the incentive properties of the BDM mechanism. We conclude that game form misconceptions are not a necessary condition for the emergence of WTP-WTA gaps.

When do voters punish corrupt politicians? Heterogeneous views about the importance of corruption can determine whether or not increased information enhances accountability. If partisan cleavages correlate with the importance voters place on corruption, then the consequences of information may vary by candidate, even when voters identify multiple candidates as corrupt. We provide evidence of this mechanism from a field experiment in a mayoral election in Brazil where a reputable interest group declared both candidates corrupt. We distributed fliers in the runoff mayoral election in São Paulo. Informing voters about the challenger's record reduced turnout by 1.9 percentage points and increased the opponent's vote by 2.6 percentage points. Informing voters about the incumbent's record had no effect on behavior. We attribute this divergent finding to differences in how each candidate's supporters view corruption. Using survey data and a survey experiment, we show that the challenger's supporters are more willing to punish their candidate for corruption, while the incumbent's supporters lack this inclination.