IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/acb/cbeeco/2021-679.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contingent Reasoning and Dynamic Public Goods Provision

Author

Listed:
  • Evan M. Calford
  • Timothy N. Cason

Abstract

Individuals often possess private information about the common value of a public good. Their contributions toward funding the public good can therefore reveal information that is useful to others who are considering their own contributions. This experiment compares static and dynamic contribution decisions to determine how hypothetical contingent reasoning differs in dynamic decisions. The timing of individuals’ sequential contribution decisions is endogenous. Funding the public good is more efficient with dynamic than static decisions in equilibrium, but this requires decision-makers to understand that in the future they can learn from past events. Our results indicate that a substantial fraction of subjects appreciate the benefits of deferring choice to learn about and condition their behavior on the contribution decisions of others. Many subjects, however, exhibit a bias away from rational choices in the direction of Cursed equilibrium, and some appear to extract information only from prior, and not concurrent, behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan M. Calford & Timothy N. Cason, 2021. "Contingent Reasoning and Dynamic Public Goods Provision," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2021-679, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:acb:cbeeco:2021-679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cbe.anu.edu.au/researchpapers/econ/wp679.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Levati & Andrea Morone & Annamaria Fiore, 2009. "Voluntary contributions with imperfect information: An experimental study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 199-216, January.
    2. Juan D. Carrillo & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2009. "The Compromise Game: Two-Sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 151-181, February.
    3. M. Kathleen Ngangoué & Georg Weizsäcker, 2021. "Learning from Unrealized versus Realized Prices," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 174-201, May.
    4. Xavier Gabaix, 2014. "A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1661-1710.
    5. Dan Levin & James Peck & Asen Ivanov, 2016. "Separating Bayesian Updating from Non-Probabilistic Reasoning: An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 39-60, May.
    6. Asen Ivanov & Dan Levin & James Peck, 2009. "Hindsight, Foresight, and Insight: An Experimental Study of a Small-Market Investment Game with Common and Private Values," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1484-1507, September.
    7. Kurtis Swope, 2002. "An Experimental Investigation of Excludable Public Goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 209-222, December.
    8. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    9. Gailmard, Sean & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2005. "An experimental comparison of collective choice procedures for excludable public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1361-1398, August.
    10. Kagel, John H. & Levin, Dan, 1986. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 894-920, December.
    11. Dickinson, David L., 1998. "The voluntary contributions mechanism with uncertain group payoffs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 517-533, May.
    12. Stoddard, Brock, 2017. "Risk in payoff-equivalent appropriation and provision games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 78-82.
    13. Ben Gillen & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2019. "Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1826-1863.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    15. Cox, Caleb A., 2015. "Cursed beliefs with common-value public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 52-65.
    16. Alejandro Martínez-Marquina & Muriel Niederle & Emanuel Vespa, 2019. "Failures in Contingent Reasoning: The Role of Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(10), pages 3437-3474, October.
    17. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2022. "Adverse selection and contingent reasoning in preadolescents and teenagers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 331-351.
    18. Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2009. "The Origin of the Winner's Curse: A Laboratory Study," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 207-236, February.
    19. Croson, Rachel & Fatas, Enrique & Neugebauer, Tibor & Morales, Antonio J., 2015. "Excludability: A laboratory study on forced ranking in team production," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 13-26.
    20. Caleb A. Cox & Brock Stoddard, 2021. "Common-Value Public Goods and Informational Social Dilemmas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 343-369, May.
    21. S. Nageeb Ali & Maximilian Mihm & Lucas Siga & Chloe Tergiman, 2021. "Adverse and Advantageous Selection in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(7), pages 2152-2178, July.
    22. Olivier Bochet & Simon Siegenthaler, 2021. "Competition and Price Transparency in the Market for Lemons: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 113-140, May.
    23. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman & Aldo Rustichini, 1998. "Standard State-Space Models Preclude Unawareness," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 159-174, January.
    24. Ignacio Esponda Jr. & Emanuel Vespa Jr., 2014. "Hypothetical Thinking and Information Extraction in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 180-202, November.
    25. Ryan Oprea, 2020. "What Makes a Rule Complex?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3913-3951, December.
    26. Felipe A. Araujo & Stephanie W. Wang & Alistair J. Wilson, 2021. "The Times They Are A-Changing: Experimenting with Dynamic Adverse Selection," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esponda, Ignacio & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory#," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt32j4d5z2, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    2. Niederle, Muriel & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Cognitive Limitations: Failures of Contingent Thinking," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt5q14p1np, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cox, Caleb A., 2015. "Cursed beliefs with common-value public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 52-65.
    2. Esponda, Ignacio & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory#," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt32j4d5z2, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    3. Niederle, Muriel & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Cognitive Limitations: Failures of Contingent Thinking," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt5q14p1np, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    4. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2022. "Adverse selection and contingent reasoning in preadolescents and teenagers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 331-351.
    5. Moser, Johannes, 2018. "Hypothetical thinking and the winner's curse: An experimental investigation," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181506, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Caleb A. Cox & Brock Stoddard, 2021. "Common-Value Public Goods and Informational Social Dilemmas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 343-369, May.
    7. Johannes Moser, 2017. "Hypothetical thinking and the winner's curse: An experimental investigation," Working Papers 176, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    8. Moser, Johannes, 2017. "Hypothetical thinking and the winner's curse: An experimental investigation," University of Regensburg Working Papers in Business, Economics and Management Information Systems 36304, University of Regensburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Koch, Christian & Penczynski, Stefan P., 2018. "The winner's curse: Conditional reasoning and belief formation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 57-102.
    10. Olivier Bochet & Jacopo Magnani, 2021. "Limited Strategic Thinking and the Cursed Match," Working Papers 20210071, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Sep 2021.
    11. André Schmelzer, 2018. "Strategy-Proofness of Stochastic Assignment Mechanisms," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 3(1), pages 17-50, December.
    12. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    13. Barron, Kai & Huck, Steffen & Jehiel, Philippe, 2019. "Everyday econometricians: Selection neglect and overoptimism when learning from others," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2019-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Nichole Szembrot, 2018. "Experimental study of cursed equilibrium in a signaling game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 257-291, June.
    15. Theo Offerman & Giorgia Romagnoli & Andreas Ziegler, 2022. "Why are open ascending auctions popular? The role of information aggregation and behavioral biases," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), pages 787-823, May.
    16. Johannes Moser, 2019. "Hypothetical thinking and the winner’s curse: an experimental investigation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 17-56, July.
    17. Ai Takeuchi & Erika Seki, 2023. "Overcoming problems of coordination and freeriding in a game with multiple public goods: dynamic contribution with information provision," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 379-411, July.
    18. Yves Breitmoser & Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2022. "Obviousness around the clock," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 483-513, April.
    19. Bayona, Anna & Brandts, Jordi & Vives, Xavier, 2020. "Information frictions and market power: A laboratory study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 354-369.
    20. Evan Piermont, 2021. "Hypothetical Expected Utility," Papers 2106.15979, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cursed equilibrium; Voluntary contributions; Club goods; Laboratory experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:acb:cbeeco:2021-679. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feanuau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.