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.

We introduce a novel scenario that embeds the Downs-Thomson paradox in the context of departure-time choice during the morning commute. Commuters, departing from a common origin and traveling to a common destination, must choose between a congestible mode (car, road) and a non-congestible mode (train, railway). Those choosing the road must also select their departure times independently and anonymously. This decision involves a trade-off between the cost of queuing at the bottleneck and the cost of schedule delay (i.e., deviation from the desired arrival time). We numerically derive a symmetric mixed-strategy equilibrium that characterizes both mode and departure-time choices. We then examine how improvements to either the road or the railway affect mean travel costs. Our laboratory experiment shows that, consistent with the paradox, improving the railway lowers mean travel cost; however, contrary to the paradox, improving the road also reduces mean travel cost. These findings suggest that the Downs-Thomson paradox may fail to emerge fully when commuters must coordinate multiple strategic dimensions under intertemporal congestion externalities.

We conduct an economic experiment to examine the causal impact of social ties on the preference for competition. Participants decide whether to engage in a competition or not. Across four treatments, potential competitors vary based on their relationship with the decision-maker: whether they had a conversation with the decision-maker prior to the competition, whether they are expected to chat after the competition, or both, or neither. We find that the process of chatting increases social closeness. This increase in social closeness tends to reduce the preference for competition when participants are expected to meet again after the competition. However, it does not change the likelihood of opting for competition if there is no prospect of further interaction. Through this experiment, we thus uncover previously unknown implications of managerial practices, such as team-building exercises and remote work options, that influence the formation of social ties.

We compare different forms of communication in the context of cheap talk sender-receiver games. While previous experiments find evidence supporting the comparative statics prediction that more preference divergence leads to less information transmission, there is also a consistent pattern of overcommunication and exaggeration, not predicted by theory, in which subjects convey more information than predicted in equilibrium. The latter of these findings may be due to the restricted nature of the message space in most experimental cheap talk games, encouraging subjects to engage in exaggeration artificially, rather than allowing it to emerge naturally. We tested this hypothesis with an incentivized lab experiment, and found evidence both phenomena persist with natural language (text-based) communication. Moreover, we probe the consequences of this expanded message space for outcomes, showing that senders benefit more than receivers, but that the most notable effect is that text messages improve efficiency.

This paper is a single-project meta-analysis of four experiments that model charitable giving as individual contributions to a multiplicity of competing threshold public goods. We pool 17,136 observations at the individual level to summarize the project and investigate the role of learning, gender, and risk attitude, since the included studies are inconclusive in this regard. We find that equally effective coordination devices are the existence of a single contribution option that stands out on its merits, learning, and delegation as long as the intermediary is formally obliged to pass along a high enough percentage of the transferred resources. Women delegate less than men, and consequently prefer direct contributions. Risk tolerance increases overall donations but decreases individual earnings. We discuss possible implications of our findings.

Previous studies have shown that an oath can reduce lying in individual settings. Can it reduce lying in groups, a context where lying is more prevalent? Results from a lab experiment reveal that the impact depends on the incentive structures and procedures. A mandatory oath reduces lying when group members’ payoffs are independent, but only has a marginal effect when payoffs are dependent. Voluntary oath-taking enhances the effectiveness under both incentive structures by fostering intrinsic motivation to keep promises. The findings highlight the importance of peer effects and oath-taking procedures on the effectiveness of an oath in group settings.

This paper investigates the collusive and competitive effects of algorithmic price recommendations on market outcomes. These recommendations are often non-binding and common in many markets. We develop a theoretical framework and derive two algorithms that recommend collusive pricing strategies. Utilizing a laboratory experiment, we find that sellers condition their prices on the recommendation of the algorithms. The algorithm with a soft punishment strategy lowers market prices and has a pro-competitive effect. The algorithm that recommends a subgame perfect equilibrium strategy increases the range of market outcomes, including more collusive ones.

We propose a two-sided market entry game and present experiments studying coordination behavior in the game. The two-sided market in the game is operated by an intermediary monopoly platform, serving two sides (i.e., customers and service providers) and featuring asymmetric agents, cross-side network effects, and endogenous market capacity. The game has multiple pure-strategy Nash equilibria if at least one side has a high willingness to enter the market and the other side’s willingness is not very low. We conduct a laboratory experiment involving three treatments corresponding to different combinations of willingness to enter the market among customers and service providers. The experimental results indicate that willingness to enter the market and cross-side network effects significantly influence coordination behavior in two-sided markets. When the multiple pure-strategy Nash equilibria are Pareto ranked on both sides, customers and service providers can coordinate their behavior to the payoff-dominant equilibrium via tacit coordination under strategic uncertainty. However, when the multiple pure-strategy Nash equilibria are Pareto ranked on one side but Pareto equivalent on the other side, coordination failure and disequilibrium occurred, and the equilibria cannot predict the aggregate behavior well. Our experimental results indicate that a thriving two-sided market should coordinate both sides on board.

Determining an individual’s strategic reasoning capability based solely on choice data is a complex task. This complexity arises because sophisticated players might have non-equilibrium beliefs about others, leading to non-equilibrium actions. In our study, we pair human participants with computer players known to be fully rational. This use of robot players allows us to disentangle limited reasoning capacity from belief formation and social biases. Our results show that, when paired with robots, subjects consistently demonstrate higher levels of rationality, compared to when paired with human players. Furthermore, players’ rationality levels are relatively stable across games when paired with robot players, even though those with intermediate rationality levels exhibit inconsistency across games. Leveraging our experimental design, we identify and document potential causes of this inconsistency.

Social interactions frequently take place under the shadow of the future. Previous literature explains cooperation in indefinitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma as driven predominantly by self-interested strategic considerations. This paper provides a causal test of the importance of social preferences in such contexts. In a series of pre-registered experiments, we show that high levels of cooperation can be sustained when prosocial individuals interact in segregated groups. By comparing their behavior with that of mixed and selfish groups, we highlight the conditions under which other-regarding motivations matter in repeated interactions.

Wrong-doers may try to collaborate to achieve greater gains than would be possible alone. Yet potential collaborators face two issues: they need to accurately identify other cheaters and trust that their collaborators do not betray them when the opportunity arises. These concerns may be in tension, since the people who are genuine cheaters could also be the likeliest to be untrustworthy. We formalise this interaction in the ‘villain’s dilemma’ and use it in a laboratory experiment to study three questions: what kind of information helps people to overcome the villain’s dilemma? Does the villain’s dilemma promote or hamper cheating relative to individual settings? Who participates in the villain’s dilemma and who is a trustworthy collaborative cheater? We find that information has important consequences for behaviour in the villain’s dilemma. Public information about actions is important for supporting collaborative dishonesty, while more limited sources of information lead to back-stabbing and poor collaboration. We also find that the level of information, role of the decision maker, and round of the experiment affect whether dishonesty is higher or lower in the villain’s dilemma than in our individual honesty settings. Finally, individual factors are generally unrelated to collaborating but individual dishonesty predicts untrustworthiness as a collaborator.

Using public goods games in a laboratory setting, we study team-level production, where two teams compete for the resources of a common-member who can benefit from and provide effort in both teams. Intrinsically, the common-member faces divided loyalties. We examine such competition in a setting in which the common-member has productive abilities equal to that of the other team members (dedicated-members), and in two settings where he/she has greater relative potential. When effort (contributions) by the common-member have greater productivity (coupled with higher opportunity costs to contribute) in providing the public good relative to that of dedicated-members, we find team performance is not significantly increased. On the other hand, when the common-member has a greater endowment, sufficient to match the absolute contributions of team members in both teams, there is a significant increase in team performance. The evidence suggests that a norm of reciprocity by dedicated-members based on absolute contributions of the common-member better explains behavior than a norm based on the value added of the common-member's contributions. This behavior, along with fairness norms elicited in a survey, suggests that on average dedicated members do not sufficiently incorporate the common-members' higher opportunity costs in the treatment where his/her productivity is increased. This setting provides an important illustration of where the behavioral response to the type of inequality matters, leading to differences in team efficiency.

In this paper, I discuss dual collective action problems in which a resource pool has simultaneous common pool and public good aspects in its usage, such as hunting (consumption) and conservation of wildlife. I then implement laboratory experiments to evaluate how spillovers between the two related uses of nature affect the consumption and conservation habits of stakeholders. The Nash predictions suggest that even the most selfish of profit-maximizing agents have an incentive to provide equally towards resource consumption and conservation when resource spillovers are present. Results from laboratory experiments are consistent with this hypothesis. As a policy intervention, I introduced and later revoked a common pool licensing policy based on U.S. hunting and fishing licensing. Under the same theoretical framework, removing a common pool licensing policy would increase welfare for all resource stakeholders. Contrary to this, experimental evidence indicates no overall change in welfare.

Motivated by problems of coordination failure in organizations, we examine how overcoming coordination failure and maintaining coordination depend on the ability of individuals to observe others’ choices. Subjects’ payoffs depend on coordinating at high effort levels in a weak-link game. Treatments vary along two dimensions. First, subjects either start with low financial incentives for coordination, which typically leads to coordination failure, and then are switched to higher incentives or start with high incentives, which usually yield effective coordination, and are switched to low incentives. Second, as the key treatment variable, subjects either observe the effort levels chosen by all individuals in their experimental group (full feedback) or observe only the minimum effort (limited feedback). We find three primary results: (1) When starting from coordination failure the use of full feedback improves subjects’ ability to overcome coordination failure, (2) When starting with good coordination the use of full feedback has no effect on subjects’ ability to avoid slipping into coordination failure, and (3) History-dependence, defined as dependence of current effort levels on past incentives, is strengthened by the use of full feedback.

We investigate the effects of order-of-play (simultaneous, unobserved sequential and fully observed sequential play) and form of presentation (extensive vs. normal) in three simple two person games: battle-of-the-sexes with and without outside option and a three strategy game which differentiates between virtual observability (VO) and iterated elimination of dominated strategies as principles of equilibrium selection. VO predicts that knowledge of the order of play alone will affect the distribution of strategies chosen. We contrast this with the predictions of iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We report results from 1800 one-shot games conducted in 6 sessions with 120 subjects and analysed as panel data. The form of presentation strongly affects the distribution of outcomes and strategies. Information about order of play shifts the distribution of strategies away from the distribution in simultaneous play and towards the distribution in fully observed play, especially in the less complicated games presented in normal order. Order-of-play effects are less evident as complexity of the game increases. Extensive form presentation appears to induce sequential thinking even in simultaneously played games.

Coordinating activity among members is an important problem faced by organizations. When firms, or units within firms, are stuck in bad equilibria, managers may turn to the temporary use of simple incentives—flat punishments or rewards—in an attempt to transition the firm or unit to a more efficient equilibrium. We investigate the use of incentives in the context of the “minimum-effort,” or “weak-link,” coordination game. We allow groups to reach the inefficient equilibrium and then implement temporary, flat, “all-or-none” incentives to encourage coordination on more efficient equilibria. We vary whether incentives are positive (rewards) or negative (penalties), whether they have substantial or nominal monetary value, and whether they are targeted to a specific outcome (the efficient equilibrium) or untargeted (apply to more than one outcome). Overall, incentives of all kinds are effective at improving coordination while they are in place, but there is little long-term persistent benefit of incentives—once incentives are removed, groups tend to return to the inefficient outcome. We find some differences between different kinds of incentives. Finally, we contrast our results to other recent work demonstrating greater long-term effectiveness of temporary incentives.

This paper compares contributions to an experimental public good across the United States and Czech Republic, using a design that allows us to distinguish between altruism and decision error. Czech subjects contribute significantly more than American subjects, and further analysis reveals that this result cannot be attributed to the confounding effects of gender or decision error. Instead, preferences for altruism appear to differ across groups: Czechs are more altruistic than Americans and men are more altruistic than women.

This paper reports on the use of carrot (positive) and stick (negative) incentives as methods of increasing effort among members of work teams. We study teams of four members in a laboratory environment in which giving effort towards the team goal is simulated by eliciting voluntary contributions towards the provision of a public good. We test the efficiency-improving properties of four distinct environments: monetary prizes given to high contributors versus monetary fines assessed to low contributors, where high/low contributor is defined first in terms of absolute contributions and then in terms of contributions relative to abilities—which we call handicapping. Our results show that both carrot and stick can increase efficiency (i.e., contributions) levels by 10-28%. We find that handicapped incentives promise the highest efficiency levels, and when handicapping is not used penalties may be more effective than prizes. The implications for work teams and suggestions for practical implementation are discussed.

We report on experimental duopoly markets with heterogeneous goods. In these markets, sellers first choose capacities and then prices. While capacities remain fixed for either five or ten periods, prices have to be chosen in every period. The experiments starts with two sets of exogenously predetermined capacities. Independently of the distribution of capacities is, a unique pure-strategy in prices is subgame perfect. In equilibrium, capacities should correspond to the Cournot prediction. Given capacities, price-setting behavior is in general consistent with the theory. Average capacities converge above the Cournot level. Capacities converge at the industry level but are somewhat dispersed. Sellers rarely manage to cooperate.

In this paper, the strategy method's impact on behavior in sequential bargaining games is investigated. Besides the decision procedure (hot versus cold), we varied the second mover punishment costs (high versus low). Significant impacts of both treatment variables were observed. For example, second movers punished significantly more often in the hot version of the low cost game. Furthermore, first mover behavior was significantly different in the hot and cold versions of both games. In the hot games, first mover behavior suggests an expectation of decreased rewards and/or punishments from second movers. We observed, however, no decrease in reward and an increase in punishment. The hot cold variable only informs first movers that the decision procedure used by second movers has changed. Therefore, first mover behavior must be shaped by their perceived assessment concerning how second movers make decisions. We argue that first mover behavior can be explained by the interaction of two well-known psychological effects: the consensus and positive self-image effects.