-
Using controlled experiments to explore the social sciences, from theory to application, in the lab and in the field.
Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science
The Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) was established in 2007 by the Faculty of Social Science at University of East Anglia. The Centre's mission is to further the long tradition at UEA of using controlled laboratory and field experiments to study key questions in the social sciences, from foundational and methodological issues to applied research.
NEWS-2012-04-11: Turocy Research Grant
Dr Turocy is awarded a research grant 23th March 2012
CBESS Director Dr. Theodore Turocy has been awarded a research grant by the British Academy for his project "Bidding in laboratory auctions: a direct comparison of private, common, and general affiliated values settings".
The Centre warmly congratulates Dr. Turocy on this achievement.
CBESS-12-03: Galeotti, Zizzo
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton Groups
Galeotti, Fabio Zizzo, Daniel John
Date: February 2012 Reference Number: CBESS-12-03
We present an experiment investigating the effects of having an individual identified as a singleton group. The presence of a singleton group reduces trustworthiness. The majority group members discriminate against the singled out group member when they are not responsible of the distinct status of this person. When the singleton group member is identified based on negative characteristics, he or she returns significantly less. Overall, having singleton groups has no benefits for trust and is potentially disruptive for trustworthiness.
CBESS-12-02: Gronberg, Luccasen, Turocy, Van Huyck
Are tax-financed contributions to a public good completely crowded-out? Experimental evidence
Gronberg, Timothy J. Luccasen, R. Andrew Turocy, Theodore L. Van Huyck, John B.
Date: February 2012 Reference Number: CBESS-12-02
We report the results of a laboratory experiment on crowd-out in a voluntary contribution mechanism public goods game. In our setting, a standard argument states that a tax should not be effective in raising contributions, because agents respond by reducing voluntary contributions by the amount of the tax. Our experimental design focuses in on this intuition by abstracting away from several potential confounds. We use a specification for the payoff function in which there is a dominant strategy for own-earnings maximizing agents, located interior to and in the upper half of the strategy space. The dominant strategy ensures that changes in contributions are attributable to the tax directly, rather than second-order effects due to responses to out-of-equilibrium play by other agents. The dominant strategy is made more transparent by the use of a novel graphical decision interface. We find that individuals robustly choose at or above the own-earnings dominant strategy level. Even with the controls of the design, crowd-out is incomplete, but the degree of crowd-out is higher than in previous studies. Analysis of individual-level decisions provides evidence of different player types. Behavior of subjects not choosing the dominant or Pareto-efficient contributions is well-organized by a model of warm-glow giving with a logit decision error.
PUB-2013-100: Fatas, Georgantzis, Manez, Sabater
Enrique Fatás; Nikolaos Georgantzís; Juan A. Máñez; Gerardo Sabater. 2013. Experimental duopolies under price guarantees. Applied Economics 45(1), 15-35. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.568398
PUB-2012-110: Gronberg, Luccasen, Turocy, Van Huyck
Timothy J. Gronberg; Andrew R. Luccasen; Theodore L. Turocy; John B. Van Huyck. 2012. Are tax-financed contributions to a public good completely crowded-out? Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics 96(7-8). DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.001
SEM-2012-05-22: Drouvelis
Michaelis Drouvelis (Birmingham)
Tuesday, 22nd May 2012 (16.10-17.30) in ARTS 01.02
Endogenous Public Goods Institutions: Who Likes to Punish?
SEM-2012-06-12: Sitzia
Stefania Sitzia (School of Economics, UEA)
Tuesday, 12th June 2012 (16.10 - 17.30) in ARTS 01.02
The Power of Default with Inattentive Consumers
