Alex Imas

Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior

Building on previous research in economics and psychology, we propose that the costliness of initial prosocial behavior positively influences whether that behavior leads to consistent future behaviors. We suggest that costly prosocial behaviors serve as a signal of prosocial identity and that people subsequently behave in line with that self-perception. In contrast, costless prosocial acts do not signal much about ones prosocial identity, so subsequent behavior is less likely to be consistent and may even show the reductions in prosocial behavior associated with licensing. The results of a laboratory experiment and a large field experiment converge to support our account. This paper was accepted by Brad Barber, Teck Ho, and Terrance Odean, special issue editors.

Conscience Accounting: Emotion Dynamics and Social Behavior

This paper presents theory and experiments where peoples prosocial attitudes fluctuate over time following the violation of an internalized norm. We report the results of two experiments in which people who first made an immoral choice were then more likely to donate to charity than those who did not. In addition, those who knew that a donation opportunity would follow the potentially immoral choice behaved more unethically than those who did not know. We interpret this increase in charitable behavior as being driven by a temporal increase in guilt induced by past immoral actions. We term such behavior conscience accounting and discuss its importance in charitable giving and in the identification of social norms in choice behavior through time inconsistency. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1942 . This paper was accepted by Teck-Hua Ho, behavioral economics.

Materazzi effect and the strategic use of anger in competitive interactions

Significance Emotions play a critical role in social interactions and decision-making. We present evidence that individuals understand the behavioral effects of emotions, particularly anger, and use them strategically in interactions. In our study, individuals competed on a task, and one of them was given the opportunity to anger the other. The first task was strength-based, where we expected anger to improve performance. Other participants competed on a mental task in which we expected anger to impair performance—angering one’s opponent here may benefit the offender. Anger affected behavior in line with our predictions. Importantly, individuals seemed to anticipate this reaction and took the strategic opportunity to anger their counterpart significantly more in the mental task than in the strength task. We propose that individuals use anger strategically in interactions. We first show that in some environments angering people makes them more effective in competitions, whereas in others, anger makes them less effective. We then show that individuals anticipate these effects and strategically use the option to anger their opponents. In particular, they are more likely to anger their opponents when anger negatively affects the opponents’ performances. This finding suggests people understand the effects of emotions on behavior and exploit them to their advantage.

Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion

There is growing interest in the use of loss contracts that offer performance incentives as upfront payments that employees can lose. Standard behavioral models predict a tradeoff in the use of loss contracts: employees will work harder under loss contracts than under gain contracts; but, anticipating loss aversion, they will prefer gain contracts to loss contracts. In a series of experiments, we test these predictions by measuring performance and preferences for payoff-equivalent gain and loss contracts. We find that people indeed work harder under loss than gain contracts, as the theory predicts. Surprisingly, rather than a preference for the gain contract, we find that people actually prefer loss contracts. In exploring mechanisms for our results, we find suggestive evidence that people do anticipate loss aversion but select into loss contracts as a commitment device to improve performance.

The Dynamics of Discrimination: Theory and Evidence

We model the dynamics of discrimination and show how its evolution can identify the underlying cause. We test these theoretical predictions in a field experiment on a large online platform where users post content that is evaluated by other users on the platform. We assign posts to accounts that exogenously vary by gender and history of evaluations. With no prior evaluations, women face significant discrimination, while following a sequence of positive evaluations, the direction of discrimination reverses: posts by women are favored over those by men. According to our theoretical predictions, this dynamic reversal implies discrimination driven by biased beliefs.