How to subsidize contributions to public goods: Does the frog jump out of the boiling water?

Offerman, Theo; Veen, A. van der

doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.11.007

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research indicated that participants were imperceptive to gradual changes while perceptive to sudden and substantial changes [13][14][15]. This phenomenon was called the frog-in-the-pan phenomenon (FIP).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, our research shared many similarities with existing research on the FIP phenomenon. As we mentioned, Offerman and his colleagues set the subsidy to gradually change and quickly change in their public goods game to investigate the FIP phenomenon [15]. When the subsidy quickly increased to 0.75 in a short period, participants' contributions jumped by 2.86, while the contributions increased by 0.73 when the subsidy progressively increased.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Offerman et al reported that the FIP phenomenon was also found in the public goods field [15]. Offerman et al stated that the FIP phenomenon could be explained by the anchoring effect.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Previous Explanations For the Fip Pheno...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lack of attention could explain this phenomenon. However, some research suggested that this explanation remains open to question [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A New Explanation for the Frog-in-the-Pan Phenomenon Based on the Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise

Liang

Liu

et al. 2022

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The frog-in-the-pan (FIP) phenomenon suggests that investors are more sensitive to abrupt price changes than gradual price changes in the stock market. Based on the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise and the reinforcement learning model, this paper provides a new explanation for the FIP phenomenon in that this phenomenon could be explained by the elicitation of surprise emotion. We predict that when a change substantially and abruptly occurs, the significant prediction error triggers participants’ surprise, which makes participants more sensitive to the change. To ascertain these hypotheses, we recruited 109 participants and compared participants’ learning rates and surprise responses under different contexts. We observed that participants’ learning rate soared when the prediction error was large enough to trigger surprise emotion under abruptly changed conditions and confirmed that the FIP phenomenon could be explained by the elicitation of surprise emotion. In a word, this research demonstrates the significant role of surprise emotion in the decision-making process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Offerman et al reported that the FIP phenomenon was also found in the public goods field [15]. Offerman et al stated that the FIP phenomenon could be explained by the anchoring effect.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Previous Explanations For the Fip Pheno...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lack of attention could explain this phenomenon. However, some research suggested that this explanation remains open to question [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A New Explanation for the Frog-in-the-Pan Phenomenon Based on the Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise

Liang

Liu

et al. 2022

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 Although this might appear an odd feature of the model, it closely maps cognitive science ideas, e.g., Chugh and Bazerman (2007) and references therein, by enabling the depiction of the boiling frog syndrome. See Offerman and Van Der Veen (2015) for evidence of the phenomenon in economics. Notice that this feature also distinguishes this specification of the model from satisficing and rational inattention models.…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual Decision Processes: Retrieving Preferences When Some Choices Are Automatic

Cerigioni

2021

Journal of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence from the cognitive sciences suggests that some choices are conscious and reflect individual volition while others tend to be automatic, being driven by analogies with past experiences. Under these circumstances, standard economic modeling might not always be applicable because not all choices are the result of individual tastes. We propose a behavioral model that can be used in standard economic analysis that formalizes the way in which conscious and automatic choices arise by presenting a decision maker comprised of two selves. One self compares past decision problems with the one the decision maker faces and, when the problems are similar enough, it replicates past behavior (Automatic choices). Otherwise, a second self is activated and preferences are maximized (Conscious choices). We then present a novel method capable of identifying a set of conscious choices from observed behavior and discuss its usefulness as a framework for studying asymmetric pricing and empirical puzzles in different settings.

show abstract