Determinants of people's motivations to approach COVID-19 vaccination centers.

This paper presents the results of a survey exploring the determinants of vacinees' confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and their motivations to become vaccinated. At the threatening rise of the highly infectious Omicron variant, in December 2021, we interviewed people in waiting lines of vaccination centers. Our results identify risk-averse and social-distancing-compliant people as showing high confidence in the vaccine, which motivates them to receive it for reasons of protecting themselves and others. By contrast, policy incentives, such as "3G/2G" restrictions, motivate risk-tolerant people who opted for vaccination to get access to public areas. Trusting people who regularly vote are little afraid of vaccines' side effects. Our findings offer insights for policymakers in societies and firms that help to tailor policies promoting vaccination based on people's economic preferences.

Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the COVID-19 crisis.

We analyze in a survey study whether economic preferences and pre-crisis social responsibility predict social compliance to the policy regulations. Results show that economic preferences are closely related to compliance with policies fighting the crisis. Risk tolerance negatively affects citizens' avoidance of crowds, whereas patience helps to do so and to stay home. Present-biased subjects engage in panic buying. Risk tolerance is negatively related with the fear of COVID-19 and trust positively resonates with positive media perception. Pre-crisis social responsible behavior related to fare evasion, turnout, support of vaccination is also positively related with social compliance. Our findings offer insights, which may help policy-makers and organizations to identify risk groups and regions for the allocation of scarce medical or surveillance resources, such as vaccines, masks, and law enforcement.

Gender differences in multi-employee gift exchange with self-reported contributions.

Gender-wage gaps are an important phenomenon on labor markets. They can possibly be caused by the institutional framework. This question is addressed in this paper. When only joint output can be observed in team production, individuals may submit self-reports of their contribution to a principal. In a multi-employee gift exchange experiment, we study how men and women behave differently with and without such self-reports. We cannot reject that self-reports left the overall efficiency of the gift exchange interaction unchanged, but detect notable gender differences. Women reported similar effort levels as men, but contributed significantly less. The difference in contributions led to a significant gender gap in wages, depending on gender group composition. These effects were only present when participants did not know each other's gender, however. When instead gender was observable, the behavior of men and women converged. The results suggest that parts of wage gaps may be related to different behavior within incomplete contract and imperfect information environments, depending on details of the informational context.

Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Teaching Materials.

Gender differences in university teaching evaluations are well established, showing less favorable assessments of female instructors. It has also been shown that these differences cannot be linked to differences in students' course performance, which would justify differences in evaluations. The less favorable assessments are thus either due to differences in aspects that do not affect student performance, but do affect their class experience (e.g., likability of voice tone), or due to evaluation biases unrelated to any actual differences in class experience. We find support for the latter mechanism when any differences between instructors are excluded by having respondents judge identical teaching materials prepared by either a male or a female instructor. In two studies, we find that female instructors receive worse ratings than male instructors from male respondents. In one study, we also find that female instructors receive higher ratings from female raters. Gender bias vanishes for non-academic subjects in our data.

Too cold for warm glow? Christmas-season effects in charitable giving.

This paper analyzes seasonal effects and their potential drivers in charitable giving. We conduct two studies to analyze whether donations to the German Red Cross differ between the Christmas season and summer. In study 1 we find that in the pre-Christmas shopping season prosocial subjects almost donate 50% less compared to prosocials in summer. In study 2 we replicate the low donations in the Christmas season. In an extensive questionnaire we control for several causes of this effect. The data suggest that the higher prosocials' self-reported stress level, the lower the donations. The higher their relative savings, the lower the giving. Our questionnaire rules out that "donation fatigue" matters. That is, donations do not depend on the number of charitable campaigns subjects are confronted with and their engagement in these activities during Christmas season outside the lab.