No abstract

Social interactions pervade daily life and thereby create an abundance of social experiences. Such personal experiences likely shape what we believe and who we are. In this paper, we ask if and how personal experiences from social interactions determine individuals' inclination to trust others? We implement an experimental environment that allows us to manipulate prior social experiences-either being paid or not being paid by a peer subject for a task-and afterwards measure participant's willingness to trust others. We contrast this situation with a control condition where we keep all aspects of the prior experiences identical, except that we remove the social dimension. Our key finding is that after positive social experiences, subjects' willingness to trust is substantially higher relative to subjects who made negative social experiences. No such effect is obtained in the control condition where we removed the social aspect of experiences. Findings from a difference-in-difference analysis confirm this pattern. Our results cannot be explained by rational learning, income effects, pay or social comparison related mood, disappointment aversion and expectations-based or social reference points. Delving into the underlying mechanisms, we provide evidence that non-standard belief patterns are an important driver of experience effects.

We explore the idea that judgment by representativeness reflects the workings of memory. In our model, the probability of a hypothesis conditional on data increases in the ease with which instances of that hypothesis are retrieved when cued with the data. Retrieval is driven by a measure of similarity which exhibits contextual interference: a data / cue is less likely to retrieve instances of a hypothesis that occurs frequently in other data. As a result, probability assessments are context dependent. In a new laboratory experiment, participants are shown two groups of images with different distributions of colors and other features. In line with the model's predictions, we find that i) decreasing the frequency of a given color in one group significantly increases the recalled frequency of that color in the other group, ii) cueing different features for the same set of images entails different probabilistic assessments, even if the features are normatively irrelevant. A calibration of the model yields a good quantitative fit with the data, highlighting the central role of contextual interference.

This paper experimentally studies the role of associative memory for belief formation. Realworld information signals are often embedded in memorable contexts. Thus, today's news, and the contexts they are embedded in, may cue the selective retrieval of similar past news and hence contribute to the widely documented pattern of expectation overreaction. Based on a stylized version of models of associative memory in the literature, we develop a simple and tightly controlled experimental setup in which participants observe sequences of news about the stock market value of hypothetical companies. Here, identical types of news are associated with identical stories and images. In this setup, participants' expectations strongly overreact to recent news. We successfully verify the model's predictions about how the magnitude of overreaction should depend on the history of news. For example, once today's news are associated with the stories and images of previous opposite news, expectations systematically underreact. By exogenously manipulating the scope for imperfect and associative recall in our setup, we further provide direct causal evidence for the role of memory in belief formation and overreaction. Finally, we use our experimental data to estimate the model parameters that govern the strength of imperfect and associative recall over different time horizons. JEL-Codes: D010.

Many intertemporal trade-offs are unbalanced: while the advantages of options are concentrated in a few periods, the disadvantages are dispersed over numerous periods. We provide novel experimental evidence for "concentration bias", the tendency to overweight advantages that are concentrated in time. Subjects commit to too much overtime work that is dispersed over multiple days in exchange for a bonus that is concentrated in time: concentration bias increases subjects' willingness to work by 22.4% beyond what standard discounting models could account for. In additional conditions and a complementary experiment involving monetary payments, we study the mechanisms behind concentration bias and demonstrate the robustness of our findings. JEL-Codes: D010.