Pro-social preferences and risk aversion with different payment methods: Evidence from the laboratory

With the advance of smart devices and financial technologies in place, economic transactions involving mobile payments are becoming increasingly preferred. The COVID-19 pandemic has further promoted the adoption of mobile payment since it is faster and more hygienic than cash payment. However, empirical evidence is scarce on whether people would react differently when the transaction is made through mobile or cash payment. In this paper, we examine whether the payment method has an impact on prosocial decisions and risk attitudes using standard laboratory games such as the dictator game, the ultimatum game as well as the conventional Holt and Laury (2002) risk assessment. After controlling a rich set of demographic characteristics, including age and gender, we find subjects are more generous when they use mobile payment compared to cash, but the payment effect on risk attitude is not evident.

Studies in behavioral economics

Is an option especially tempting when it is both immediate and certain? To study the effect of risk on present bias, my first chapter presents an online experiment in which workers allocate about thirty minutes of real-effort tasks between two weeks. I compare choices made two days before the first workday against choices made when work is imminent. In baseline treatments, one choice is randomly implemented;meanwhile, one treatment implements a particular allocation with certainty. By assuming that effort costs are not affected by the mechanism (and thus independent of risk preferences), my novel design permits estimation of present bias using a decision with a consequence both immediate and certain. I find the average intensity of present bias is far greater under certainty than under risk. I find no evidence that present bias is more pervasive among individuals, suggesting instead that present-biased individuals become more myopic.COVID-19 vaccination has both private and public benefits. The second chapter, co-authored with Gary Charness and David Levine, asks whether social preferences-concerns for the well-being of other people-influence one's decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects: We give each subject $4 to play a public-goods game and make contributions to public welfare. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in this game is analogous to an individual's decision to obtain COVID-19 vaccination. We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-goods game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 48% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). People who are more pro-social are indeed more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination.Widespread vaccination is certainly a critical element in successfully fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The third chapter, co-authored with Gary Charness and David Levine, applies theories of social identity to design targeted messaging to reduce vaccine hesitancy among groups with low vaccine uptake, such as African Americans and political conservatives. We conducted an online experiment from April 7th to 27th, 2021, that oversampled Black, Latinx, conservative, and religious U.S. residents. We first solicited the vaccination status of over 10,000 individuals. Of the 4,609 individuals who reported being unvaccinated, 4,190 enrolled in our covariate-adaptive randomized trial. We provided participants messages that presented the health risks of COVID-19 to oneself and others;they also received messages about the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine and an endorsement by a celebrity. Messages were randomly tailored to each participant's identities-Black, Latinx, conservative, religious, or being a parent. Respondents reported their intent to obtain the vaccine for oneself and, if a parent, for one's child. We report results for the 2,621 unvaccinated respondents who passed an incentivized manipulation check. We find no support for the hypothesis that customized messages or endorsers reduce vaccine hesitancy among our segments. A post hoc analysis finds evidence that a vaccine endorsement from Dr. Fauci reduces stated intent to vaccinate among conservatives. We find no evidence that tailoring public-health communication regarding COVID-19 vaccination for broad demographic groups would increase its effectiveness. We recommend further research on communicators and endorsers, as well as incentives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Age-Related Associations of Altruism with Attitudes towards COVID-19 and Vaccination: A Representative Survey in the North of Italy.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus pandemic, altruism has been linked to personal protective behavior, vaccine development, and vaccination intention. Studies of the moderating effects of age on altruism in pandemic preparedness have not yet been conducted. METHODS: A representative cross-sectional survey of residents of South Tyrol, Italy, was conducted in March 2021. Among the participants, 1169 were aged 18-69 years, and 257 were aged ≥ 70 years. The questionnaire collected information on sociodemographic and individual characteristics, including comorbidities, COVID-19-related experiences, trust in information, the likelihood of accepting the national vaccination plan, and altruism. A linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Among 1426 participants, the median altruism sum score was 24 (interquartile range, 20-26). In the participant group aged ≥ 70 years, the median altruism score was significantly higher than that in the younger group. Participants living in a single household were significantly less altruistic than other participants, while participants working in the health sector, living in a household at risk from coronavirus disease 2019, or suffering from a chronic disease were found to be more altruistic. Altruism showed significant positive correlations with age and agreement with the national vaccination plan and was negatively correlated with well-being. Trust in institutions was positively correlated with altruism only in the younger age group but not in the elderly. Linear regression models confirmed female gender and identified trust in institutions as a positive predictor of altruism. In the younger age group, increased well-being and restricted individual sports activities were associated with reduced altruism, whereas support of compulsory self-isolation after contact with a SARS-CoV-2-positive person and handwashing as a personal protective measure were positively associated. CONCLUSION: Altruism is associated with various predictors of pandemic behavior and traits. The strengths of the identified positive and negative correlations support the modifying role of age in the effects of altruism on pandemic attitudes. Interventions that are likely to enhance altruism to improve pandemic preparedness in certain age groups require further study.

COVID-19 reduced age differences in social motivation.

Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) maintains that when futures loom large, as they typically do in youth, people are motivated to explore. When future time is perceived as more limited, as is typical in old age, people are motivated to pursue emotionally meaningful goals. Because the COVID-19 pandemic primed mortality across the age spectrum, it provided an opportunity to examine whether age differences in social motivation typically observed were also present during the pandemic. We measured social motivation, as operationalized by social preferences, in two studies during peak of the pandemic in 2020. Once vaccines were introduced in 2021, we conducted two additional studies using the same experimental paradigm. As hypothesized, at the peak of the pandemic, social preferences favored emotionally meaningful partners regardless of age. Social preferences differed by age (as reliably observed in research conducted before the pandemic) when vaccines were available. Findings suggest that widely documented age differences in social motivation reflect time horizons more than chronological age.

Studies in behavioral economics

Is an option especially tempting when it is both immediate and certain? To study the effect of risk on present bias, my first chapter presents an online experiment in which workers allocate about thirty minutes of real-effort tasks between two weeks. I compare choices made two days before the first workday against choices made when work is imminent. In baseline treatments, one choice is randomly implemented;meanwhile, one treatment implements a particular allocation with certainty. By assuming that effort costs are not affected by the mechanism (and thus independent of risk preferences), my novel design permits estimation of present bias using a decision with a consequence both immediate and certain. I find the average intensity of present bias is far greater under certainty than under risk. I find no evidence that present bias is more pervasive among individuals, suggesting instead that present-biased individuals become more myopic.COVID-19 vaccination has both private and public benefits. The second chapter, co-authored with Gary Charness and David Levine, asks whether social preferences-concerns for the well-being of other people-influence one's decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects: We give each subject $4 to play a public-goods game and make contributions to public welfare. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in this game is analogous to an individual's decision to obtain COVID-19 vaccination. We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-goods game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 48% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). People who are more pro-social are indeed more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination.Widespread vaccination is certainly a critical element in successfully fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The third chapter, co-authored with Gary Charness and David Levine, applies theories of social identity to design targeted messaging to reduce vaccine hesitancy among groups with low vaccine uptake, such as African Americans and political conservatives. We conducted an online experiment from April 7th to 27th, 2021, that oversampled Black, Latinx, conservative, and religious U.S. residents. We first solicited the vaccination status of over 10,000 individuals. Of the 4,609 individuals who reported being unvaccinated, 4,190 enrolled in our covariate-adaptive randomized trial. We provided participants messages that presented the health risks of COVID-19 to oneself and others;they also received messages about the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine and an endorsement by a celebrity. Messages were randomly tailored to each participant's identities-Black, Latinx, conservative, religious, or being a parent. Respondents reported their intent to obtain the vaccine for oneself and, if a parent, for one's child. We report results for the 2,621 unvaccinated respondents who passed an incentivized manipulation check. We find no support for the hypothesis that customized messages or endorsers reduce vaccine hesitancy among our segments. A post hoc analysis finds evidence that a vaccine endorsement from Dr. Fauci reduces stated intent to vaccinate among conservatives. We find no evidence that tailoring public-health communication regarding COVID-19 vaccination for broad demographic groups would increase its effectiveness. We recommend further research on communicators and endorsers, as well as incentives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Nudging for Lockdown Behavioral Insights From an Online Experiment

We test the effectiveness of a social comparison nudge (SCN) to enhance lockdown compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic using a French representative sample (N = 1,154). Respondents were randomly assigned to a favorable/unfavorable informational feedback (daily road traffic mobility patterns, in Normandy - a region of France) on peer lockdown compliance. Our dependent variable was the intention to comply with a possible future lockdown. We controlled for risk, time, and social preferences and tested the effectiveness of the nudge. We found no evidence of the effectiveness of the SCN among the whole French population, but the nudge was effective when its recipient and the reference population shared the same geographical location (Normandy). Exploratory results on this subsample (N = 52) suggest that this effectiveness could be driven by noncooperative individuals.

Human cooperation and the crises of climate change, COVID-19, and misinformation

Contemporary society is facing many social dilemmas-including climate change, COVID-19, and misinformation-characterized by a conflict between short-term self-interest and longer-term collective interest. The climate crisis requires paying costs today to reduce climate-related harms and risks that we face in the future. The COVID-19 crisis requires the less vulnerable to pay costs to benefit the more vulnerable in the face of great uncertainty. The misinformation crisis requires investing effort to assess truth and abstain from spreading attractive falsehoods. Addressing these crises requires an understanding of human cooperation. To that end, we present (a) an overview of mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation, including mechanisms based on similarity and interaction;(b) a discussion of how reputation can incentivize cooperation via conditional cooperation and signaling;and (c) a review of social preferences that undergird the proximate psychology of cooperation, including positive regard for others, parochialism, and egalitarianism. We discuss the three focal crises facing our society through the lens of cooperation, emphasizing how cooperation research can inform our efforts to address them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic environment and generosity.

We report data from an online experiment which allows us to study how generosity changed over a 6-day period during the initial explosive growth of the COVID-19 pandemic in Andalusia, Spain, while the country was under a strict lockdown. Participants (n = 969) could donate a fraction of a €100 prize to an unknown charity. Our data are particularly rich in the age distribution and we complement them with daily public information about COVID-19-related deaths, infections and hospital admissions. We find correlational evidence that donations decreased in the period under study, particularly among older individuals. Our analysis of the mechanisms behind the detected decrease in generosity suggests that expectations about others' behaviour, perceived mortality risk and (alarming) information play a key-but independent-role for behavioural adaptation. These results indicate that social behaviour is quickly adjusted in response to the pandemic environment, possibly reflecting some form of selective prosociality.

How the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic impacted pro-social behaviour and individual preferences: Experimental evidence from China.

We present experimental evidence on how pro-sociality, trust and attitudes towards risk and ambiguity evolved over the six weeks following the imposition of stringent Covid-19 related lockdown measures in the Hubei province of China. We compare incentivized economic decision-making in a baseline sample, collected pre-epidemic, with a series of repeated cross-sectional samples drawn from the same population between January and March, 2020. We find high rates of altruism, cooperation and aversion to risk taking under ambiguity in the immediate aftermath of the lockdown, while trust is significantly below its baseline level. Risk attitudes also differ in the post-lockdown sample, with decreased risk tolerance in the loss domain and lesser risk aversion in the gain domain. We further uncover significant transitory effects for trust and risk aversion around the date of a high-profile whistleblower's death from Covid-19. Our findings suggest that the onset of a public health crisis may have unintended consequences for economic preferences that determine population compliance with interventions designed to reduce the spread of a novel coronavirus.

Altruism and vaccination intentions: Evidence from behavioral experiments.

Vaccine hesitancy has been on the rise throughout the past two decades, especially in high income countries where existing pro-vaccination public health communication strategies have proven ineffective. We argue that appealing to other-regarding preferences is one way of improving the effectiveness of public health communication strategies. To test this argument, we assess how vaccination intentions are influenced by the presence of people who cannot vaccinate, such as the immunosuppressed, newborns or pregnant women, using a laboratory experiment where there is a passive player whose welfare depends on the decisions of other, active players. Results suggest that pro-vaccine messages targeting altruism can increase vaccination intentions by: (i) invoking past experiences of dependence and vulnerability; (ii) stressing cooperation as a social norm; and (iii) emphasizing the presence of vulnerable individuals in a given society.

Solidarity and fairness in times of crisis.

In a large-scale pre-registered survey experiment with a representative sample of more than 8000 Americans, we examine how a reminder of the COVID-19 pandemic causally affects people's views on solidarity and fairness. We randomly manipulate whether respondents are asked general questions about the crisis before answering moral questions. By making the pandemic particularly salient for treated respondents, we provide causal evidence on how the crisis may change moral views. We find that a reminder about the crisis makes respondents more willing to prioritize society's problems over their own problems, but also more tolerant of inequalities due to luck. We show that people's moral views are strongly associated with their policy preferences for redistribution. The findings show that the pandemic may alter moral views and political attitudes in the United States and, consequently, the support for redistribution and welfare policies.

Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Socially responsible behavior is crucial for slowing the spread of infectious diseases. However, economic and epidemiological models of disease transmission abstract from prosocial motivations as a driver of behaviors that impact the health of others. In an incentivized study, we show that a large majority of people are very reluctant to put others at risk for their personal benefit. Moreover, this experimental measure of prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, measured in a separate and ostensibly unrelated study with the same people. Prosocial individuals are more likely to follow physical distancing guidelines, stay home when sick, and buy face masks. We also find that prosociality measured two years before the pandemic predicts health behaviors during the pandemic. Our findings indicate that prosociality is a stable, long-term predictor of policy-relevant behaviors, suggesting that the impact of policies on a population may depend on the degree of prosociality.

Resource scarcity and prioritization decisions in medical care: A lab experiment with heterogeneous patient types.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems around the world have received additional funding, while at other times, financial support has been lowered to consolidate public spending. Such budget changes likely affect provision behavior in health care. We study how different degrees of resource scarcity affect medical service provision and, in consequence, patients' health. In a controlled lab environment, physicians are paid by capitation and allocate limited resources to several patients. This implies a trade-off between physicians' profits and patients' health benefits. We vary levels of resource scarcity and patient characteristics systematically and observe that most subjects in the role of physician devote a relatively stable share of budget to patient treatment, implying that they provide fewer services when they face more severe budget constraints. Average patient benefits decrease in proportion to physician budgets. The majority of subjects chooses an allocation that leads to equal patient benefits as opposed to allocating resources efficiently.