Cette thèse contribue à rendre le marché de la rénovation énergétique durable et autonome. L’objectif est de contribuer à quantifier le risque de non atteinte de la performance énergétique après rénovation. Tout d’abord, nous analysons les facteurs psychologiques des ménages à prendre en compte pour améliorer les modèles de prédictions de consommation d’énergie. Via le programme Je rénove BBC, nous mettons en évidence quatre biais cognitifs impactant l’écart de la consommation d’énergie réelle et prédite. Puis, nous étudions les structures de contrats les plus appropriés pour améliorer le déroulement des chantiers, incitant les artisans à mieux travailler. D’une part, nous déterminons des contrats pour un Agent devant effectuer deux tâches et sous-estimant l’impact de l’une d’entre elles sur la performance du bâtiment. D’autre part, nous testons des incitations individuelles et collectives sur la capacité de plusieurs artisans à se coordonner selon leur formation initiale (DORéMI, …). / This thesis aims at contributing to make the energy renovation market long-lasting and self-sustaining. To achieve this, our objective is to quantify the risk of not achieving energy performance after renovation. First, we analyze households’ psychological factors that should be considered to improve energy consumption prediction models. Drawing on the Je rénove BBC program, we highlight four cognitive biases that negatively impact the difference between actual and predicted energy consumption. We then study the most appropriate contract structures improving the flow and quality of renovation projects, encouraging craftsmen to work better. On one hand, we determine optimal contracts for an Agent who has to perform two tasks and underestimates the impact of one of them on the building's performance. On the other hand, we test individual-based and group-based incentives on the ability of several real Agents (craftsmen) to coordinate, according to their initial training (DORéMI, …).

<div>This thesis consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, I investigate the effects of complexity in various voting systems on individual behavior in small group electoral competitions. Using a laboratory experiment, I observe individual behavior within one of three voting systems -- plurality, instant runoff voting (IRV), and score then automatic runoff (STAR). I then estimate subjects' behavior in three different models of bounded rationality. The estimated models are a model of Level-K thinking (Nagel, 1995), the Cognitive Hierarchy (CH) model (Camerer, et al. 2004), and a Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) (McKelvey and Palfrey 1995). I consistently find that more complex voting systems induce lower levels of strategic thinking. This implies that policy makers desiring more sincere voting behavior could potentially achieve this through voting systems with more complex strategy sets. Of the tested behavioral models, Level-K consistently fits observed data the best, implying subjects make decisions that combine of steps of thinking with random, utility maximizing, errors.</div><div><br></div><div>In the second chapter, I investigate the relationship between the mechanisms used to select leaders and both measures of group performance and leaders' ethical behavior. Using a laboratory experiment, we measure group performance in a group minimum effort task with a leader selected using one of three mechanisms: random, a competition task, and voting. After the group task, leaders must complete a task that asks them to behave honestly or dishonestly in questions related to the groups performance. We find that leaders have a large impact on group performance when compared to those groups without leaders. Evidence for which selection mechanism performs best in terms of group performance seems mixed. On measures of honesty, the strongest evidence seems to indicate that honesty is most positively impacted through a voting selection mechanism, which differences in ethical behavior between the random and competition selection treatments are negligible.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>In the third chapter, I provide an investigation into the factors and conditions that drive "free riding" behavior in dynamic innovation contests. Starting from a dynamic innovation contest model from Halac, et al. (2017), I construct a two period dynamic innovation contest game. From there, I provide a theoretical background and derivation of mixed strategies that can be interpreted as an agent's degree to which they engage in free riding behavior, namely through allowing their opponent to exert effort in order to uncover information about an uncertain state of the world. I show certain conditions must be fulfilled in order to induce free riding in equilibrium, and also analytically show the impact of changing contest prize structures on the degree of free riding. I end this paper with an experimental design to test these various theoretical conclusions in a laboratory setting while also considering the behavioral observations recorded in studies investigating similar contest models and provide a plan to analyze the data collected by this laboratory experiment.</div><div><br></div><div>All data collected for this study consists of individual human subject data collected from laboratory experiments. Project procedures have been conducted in accordance with Purdue's internal review board approval and known consent from all participants was obtained.</div>

The goal of the PhD thesis is to investigate the role of behavioural economics considerations for the performance of conservation auctions. The findings of the three scientific articles suggest that behavioural economics considerations like social (distributional) preferences and reference-dependent preferences may affect the attractiveness and economic performance of conservation auctions, respectively. The results of the first and second articles are based on laboratory experiments conducted with university students, in Germany. The third article implements a field experiment to measure farmers’ preferences over Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) allocation mechanisms and the role of fairness therein, in the context of agrobiodiversity loss in Benin.

Social attitude is the approach of a person displayed towards other individuals or groups. Social attitude comprehensively affects the way we perceive, behave in, and interact with, the surrounding world; it is simply not possible to understand complex social behaviour such as strategic thinking without first knowing the attitude of the parties involved. Several disciplines contribute to the complex study of social attitude (social preferences in economics, social value orientation in psychology), but only recently have these disciplines started to communicate and develop comprehensive definitions and models. In particular, the current research debate focuses on pinpointing the nature of social attitude (e.g., what its defining components are), the factors that influence it (e.g. context, other individuals), as well as its consequences (e.g., its relevance for self-image representation). This thesis aims to answer to some of the open questions in the literature by testing and comparing the proposed competing explanations. The studies presented are based on a series of behavioural experiments coupled with established but also newly developed measurement tools concerning social norms and personal preferences. In addition, we try to uncover the mental processes underlying decisions with the help of computational models. The thesis is structured as follows. In Chapter 1, We outline a brief summary of the theories on social attitude from the economic and psychological literature, and describe the main tasks and models employed in the thesis. Chapter 2 explores how social attitude is influenced by others’ behaviour. We conduct a systematic comparison of the possible mechanisms driving attitude conformity using various experimental conditions, computational models, and control tasks (e.g., norm elicitation). We find that participants conform due to both peer influence (by learning from others about how salient a norm is) and compliance to authority (i.e. experimenter demand effects). Chapter 3 studies the effect of context in a task eliciting social attitude. We specifically test the effect of unavailable choices, that we call ”meta-context”, on participant’s decisions. We find that participants’ concerns about social norms, as well as their choices, depend on the currently available options, but also on meta-context. In Chapter 4, we study whether individuals tend to selectively forget about their morally questionable choices, and information related to it, such as the context in which the choice was made. We find that participants recollect less correctly selfish or anti-social choices compared to pro-social ones, but we find no memory bias concerning the context of the choice. Moreover, we uncover some potential evidence of a second memory bias related to choice frequency: people are generally more pro-social than antisocial, which means antisocial choices are more rare and thus more difficult to remember correctly. Finally, in chapter 5 We summarise the main findings of the thesis and present some conclusions. We try to integrate the various results to propose an empirically-informed model of social attitude to be applied in future research on the topic.

Kapitel 1: Narrative persuasion (mit Kai Barron) Anhand eines Experiments untersuchen wir die Verwendung von Narrativen in einem Kontext in dem Sender:innen möglicherweise andere Anreize haben als Empfänger:innen. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Sender:innen eigennützige Narrative konstruieren und sie auf objektive Informationen zuschneiden. Desweiteren finden wir, dass Sender:innen in der Lage sind, die Erwartungen von Empfänger:innen zu verändern. Drittens ermitteln wir, dass Empfänger:innen Narrative überzeugend finden, die gut zu den objektiven Informationen passen. Schließlich stellen wir fest, dass es schwierig ist, gegen narratives Überreden zu schützen. Kapitel 2: Signaling motives in lying games Dieses Kapitel untersucht ein Lügenspiel, in dem Agent:innen ihren moralischen Typ signalisieren. In der theoretischen Analyse zeigt sich ein Signalisierungsmotiv, bei dem es den Agent:innen missfällt, der Lüge verdächtigt zu werden, und bei dem einige Lügen stärker stigmatisiert werden als andere. Die Gleichgewichtsvorhersage des Modells kann experimentelle Daten aus früheren Studien erklären. Ich verdeutliche die Beziehung des untersuchten Modells zu Modellen in denen Agent:innen eine Abneigung haben, des Lügens verdächtigt zu werden und biete Anwendungen auf Narrative, Lernen und das Offenlegen von Lügen. Kapitel 3: Because I don't deserve it: Entitlement and lying (mit Daniel Parra) Wir untersuchen die Auswirkungen von Anspruchsdenken auf die Bereitschaft zu lügen. In einem Laborexperiment erhalten Teilnehmer:innen entweder ein hohes oder niedriges Einkommen. Das Einkommen wird entweder leistungsabhängig oder unabhängig gezahlt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen folgendes: Unter Teilnehmer:innen die ein leistungsabhängiges Einkommen erhalten haben, lügen diejenigen, die weniger Geld verdient haben, weniger als diejenigen, die mehr verdient haben. Wir finden keine Unterschiede bei denjenigen die lügen können, um leistungsunabhängiges Einkommen zu behalten. / Chapter 1: Narrative persuasion (with Kai Barron) Using an experiment, we examine the use of narratives as a persuasive tool in a context where senders may hold incentives that differ from those of receivers. Our results reveal several insights about the underlying mechanisms that govern narrative persuasion. First, we show that advisors construct self-interested narratives and make them persuasive by tailoring them to fit the objective information. Second, we demonstrate that advisors can shift investors' beliefs about the future performance of a company. Third, we identify the types of narratives that investors find convincing. Finally, we find that narrative persuasion is difficult to protect against. Chapter 2: Signaling motives in lying games This chapter studies the implications of agents signaling their moral type in a lying game. In the theoretical analysis, a signaling motive emerges where agents dislike being suspected of lying and where some lies are more stigmatized than others. The equilibrium prediction of the model can explain experimental data from previous studies, on partial lying, where individuals lie to gain a non-payoff-maximizing amount. I discuss the relationship with theoretical models of lying that conceptualize the image concern as an aversion to being suspected of lying and provide applications to narratives, learning, and the disclosure of lies. Chapter 3: Because I don't deserve it: Entitlement and lying (with Daniel Parra) We study the effect of entitlement on the willingness to lie. In a laboratory experiment, participants receive either a high or low endowment. In one treatment, the allocation depends on participants' performance, and in the other, it depends on random draw. Our study shows that entitlement influences lying in an intuitive direction: when performance determines income, those who earn less money lie less than those who earn more. We do not find differences in lying when participants lie to keep windfall endowments.

<p dir="ltr">This dissertation investigates strategic decision-making under conditions of environmental inequality. The three chapters explore various forms of inequality across different decision contexts</p><p dir="ltr">The first chapter examines the impact of income inequality on individuals' participation in multiple public goods investments. Specifically, it analyzes how a global club good opportunity influences local public goods provision in indefinitely repeated interactions within a linear public goods game using a voluntary contribution mechanism. The study varies global club entry costs and local community endowment compositions to assess their effects on contributions and welfare. It finds that income inequality does not significantly alter contribution behaviors in single public good settings under indefinitely repeated interactions. With the introduction of a global club good, lower entry costs lead to higher participation rates among subjects, resulting in increased total welfare for both homogeneous and heterogeneous communities. Conversely, higher entry costs reduce participation and overall welfare. Heterogeneous communities discontinue club use sooner than homogeneous ones. Efficiency, measured as realized payoff relative to maximal social benefits, declines across all treatments following the introduction of a global club good. Additionally, counterfactual simulations using an individual evolutionary learning model demonstrate that the welfare benefits of a global club good opportunity hinge on its ability to yield substantial social benefits compared to local public goods.</p><p dir="ltr">The second chapter explores how power inequality influences cooperation in a dynamic game where competition and cooperation evolve over time. This research, conducted as part of a collaborative project with Yaroslav Rosokha, Denis Tverskoi, and Sergey Gavrilets, examines cooperation dynamics in scenarios where cooperation's benefits depend on political power derived from a contest. The study highlights that incumbency advantages in political contests precipitate a rapid breakdown of cooperation within social dilemmas. Furthermore, it investigates behavioral disparities between groups and individuals, leveraging simulations based on the Arifovic and Ledyard (2012) individual evolutionary learning model to shed light on the difference observed in the experiment.</p><p dir="ltr">The third chapter investigates the impact of unequal positions in a directed communication network on individuals' optimal stopping rules and social learning outcomes. The study involves subjects making predictions about uncertain states of the world using private information and social information obtained through a directed network. Theoretical predictions suggest that individuals should wait when the benefit of waiting exceeds the associated cost. Empirical results confirm that subjects indeed wait longer in more connected networks or when waiting costs are low. However, deviations from equilibrium predictions indicate influences of bounded rationality (supported by quantal response equilibrium) and heuristic decision-making, where some subjects consistently wait for a single turn regardless of positional advantage. Importantly, under-waiting at an information aggregator's position has negative externalities on group-wide information acquisition.</p>

<p dir="ltr">The rise of digital media has allowed for unprecedented access to information. In particular, people are able to form beliefs based on information sources that span the full spectrum of reputation, information quality, and motivated biases. Such access is a double-edged sword because “with great power, comes great responsibility” (“Spider-Man”, 2002). Heterogeneity in information quality may be due to a variety of factors, and it is often up to the consumer to consider quality signals when evaluating the quality of information. My research explores this complicated process, and contributes to the understanding of how people demand and utilize information in different environments. I do so over three chapters. The first studies how people respond to signals of information quality in a sequential prediction game. In the second chapter, biased incentives are introduced in a prediction game experiment to test how intrinsic and extrinsic biases affect demand and utilization of information. The third chapter contains a survey in which subjects report their valuations of an X account that varies on political affiliation, occupation credentials, and number of followers.</p><p dir="ltr">My first chapter focuses on how subjects respond to signals of information quality. In it, subjects predict which of two urns was randomly chosen in each of 30 rounds. They observe a private ball drawn from the selected urn each round to help them make their prediction. The color of the ball signals the urn it came from. The subjects then sequentially broadcast their belief about which urn was selected for the session without revealing the color of the observed ball. Future subjects can use the previous broadcasts to infer additional information that may help them accurately predict the urn.</p><p dir="ltr">In the control, subjects exhibit very low utilization of previous predictions when informing their own behavior. While consistent with prior research, behaving in such a manner is suboptimal. To experiment on the malleability of subjects’ beliefs about the rationality of others, I implement two novel treatments. In the first, the subjects’ prediction order in the last 15 rounds is determined by their accrued earnings in the first 15 rounds, with highest earners predicting first. The prediction order is similarly determined in the second treatment, except a quiz on conditional updating ability is used. Subjects who score the highest on the quiz predict first. In both cases, the sorting mechanism is explained to the subjects.</p><p dir="ltr">Sorting on earnings yields a modest increase in valuations of previous subjects’ predictions. A much more significant increase is observed when sorting on ability. Additionally, the subjects who make the fewest irrational predictions (ones against the color of the ball when they do not have additional information to suggest otherwise) are the ones who score the best in the ability sort. Placing them at the beginning of rounds increases the entire round’s average earnings.</p><p dir="ltr">My second chapter uses a similar environment to study the role that bias plays in demanding and utilizing information. In it, participants predict which of two states (red or blue) each of 30 rounds was assigned. To aid them, participants observe two predictions from ‘experts,’ who are informed by a private signal with a known precision. Participants can bid to receive additional information about the state from two sources: a private signal and another independent expert’s prediction. Both sources’ precision is known. This method is the first of its kind, and allows for direct comparison between information types. The bid results are revealed once this process is complete. Participants then predict the state.</p><p dir="ltr">Two innovative treatments are implemented to implement bias into the basic environment exogenously. In the first, participants receive a small bonus each time they predict the state is blue. In the second, experts receive the same bonus each time they predict the state is blue instead of the participants. Surprisingly, participants value the private signal and additional expert’s prediction similarly, except when the experts are biased. This is a departure from most research using similar environments, which assume that some sub-optimal behavior can be attributed to mistrust in others’ ability to understand the environment. That assumption may warrant further and more careful evaluation. The most striking valuation behavior is when participants are biased. Their bids are higher when their existing information set already favors their bias, relative to when it is against it. Doing so is antithetical to the rational equilibrium and inconsistent with prior research on confirmation bias.</p><p dir="ltr">Participants generally utilize information obtained from a successful bid at a lower rate when it is against the initial experts than with it. No difference is detected between information sources. This is expected, albeit inconsistent with rational decision-making. One exception is noted. When participants are biased, they use the newly obtained information at a much higher rate when it is consistent with their bias than against it. Doing so is at odds with bidding behavior, as it implies participants bid more to receive information that they utilize less. Participants generally do a much better job of rationalizing and responding to the experts’ bias than their own in the experiment.</p><p dir="ltr">My third chapter is motivated partly by the findings in my first two chapters, using a more contextualized setting. In it, subjects are presented with a series of X account versions. The versions vary on political affiliation, occupation credentials, and number of followers. Subjects are asked to rate how much they would value information from each account version. Subjects value account versions with an unrevealed political party affiliation more than their analogs which report a party affiliation, regardless of the party or the subject’s beliefs.</p><p dir="ltr">A partisan penalty is uniformly implemented. Additionally, credentials are insufficient to overcome bias concerns. The penalty assessed to an account version aligning with a party is similar when the version has high credentials versus when it does not. Followers are also a valuable resource, regardless of political affiliation or credential levels. The marginal value that followers provide is similar for all account versions, meaning that even relative experts in a field should seek validation if they want to be valued by others.</p><p dir="ltr">Previous research would expect subjects to value versions more when they are congruent with their own beliefs, so these findings are surprising. Two groups are identified as the most likely to deviate and value same-typed account versions more: subjects who believe echo chambers are good and subjects who are concerned they have believed fake news in the past. The former group does not require a significant number of followers to highly value a politically congruent account version. The latter value politically unaffiliated accounts even more, but are more skeptical of opposition account versions and are even more sensitive to the number of followers they have.</p><p dir="ltr">These three chapters explore new avenues for researching how biases and expertise are evaluated and responded to. People are generally much better at considering the potential biases that others have than rationalizing their own biases. I also find good news in an era of heightened concern about eroding trust in experts. In each case, subjects respond to signals of expertise, and demonstrate efforts to exploit the information that experts provide.</p>

The experiments presented and analyzed in this dissertation concern two well-established phenomena in behavioral economics: that human decision makers hold biased beliefs about probability and that free-form communication between economic agents promotes cooperation far in excess of what standard theory predicts. First, Chapter 2 studies subjective probability, focusing on the well-established existence of both the Hot Hand and Gambler's Fallacies — the false expectation of positive and negative autocorrelation, respectively. Both biases are prevalent throughout a wide variety of real-world contexts; what causes a person to favor one over the other? We conduct an experiment in which we observe fully informed subjects switching between the Hot Hand and Gambler's Fallacies when predicting future outcomes of mathematically identical sequences. Subjects exhibit the Gambler's Fallacy when predicting single outcomes but favor the Hot Hand when asked explicitly to estimate probabilities. Connecting our results to existing theory suggests that very subtle changes in framing lead decision makers to employ substantially different approaches to form predictions. The remainder of this dissertation studies cheap talk communication between human subjects playing incentivised trust games. In Chapter 3, we study free-form communication using a dataset of over 1000 messages sent between participants in a laboratory Trust game. We employ Natural Language Processing to systematically generate meaningful partitions of the messages space which we can then examine with established regression approaches. Our investigation reveals features correlated with trust that have not previously been considered. Most notably, highly detailed, specific promises establish trust more effectively than other messages which signal the same intended action. Additionally, we observe that the most and least trusted messages in our dataset differ starkly in their quality. Highly trusted messages are longer, more detailed, and contain fewer grammatical errors whereas the least trusted messages tend to be brief and prone to errors. In Chapter 4, we examine whether the difference is message quality affects trust by acting as a signal of effort. We report the results of an experiment designed to test whether promises which require higher levels of effort result in greater trust from their recipients. We find that more costly promises lead recipients to trust more frequently. However, there is no corresponding, significant difference in the trustworthiness of their senders. Further, when asked their beliefs explicitly, recipients do not believe that higher cost promises are more likely to be trustworthy. This presents a potential challenge to our understanding of trust between economic decision makers. If effort increases trust without altering receivers' beliefs, receivers must be concerned with factors other than their own payoff maximization. We conclude by presenting a follow-up experiment where varying effort cost cannot convey the sender's intentions, however, the results are inconclusive. / Doctor of Philosophy / This dissertation presents three projects in which we examine how human decision makers' choices differ from those predicted by standard economic theory. The experiments we conduct cover two broad topics: the way humans estimate the probability of random events and how communication leads to greater cooperation between agents with potentially conflicting monetary interests. It is well established that humans often hold distorted beliefs about probability. Depending on the direction of their bias, these beliefs are consistent with either the Hot Hand or Gambler's Fallacy. In Chapter 2, we examine the factors which may cause people to change the direction of their bias. Subjects exhibit the Gambler's Fallacy when predicting single outcomes, but favor the Hot Hand when asked explicitly to estimate probabilities. Chapters 3 and 4 study cheap talk communication between decision makers — messages which carry with them no commitment mechanism. It is no surprise to the average person that communication may enhance cooperation and trust between people. Experimental economists have verified this intuition in laboratory experiments and found that free-form communication is particularly effective. However, the precise mechanism through which free-form communication enhances cooperation is unclear. In Chapter 3, we collect a large dataset of free-form messages transmitted between players of an investment game. We then employ Natural Language Processing tools, novel to the Economics laboratory, to parse the unstructured data and identify message features associated with changes in trust and trustworthiness. Chapter 4 continues to examine communication, investigating whether the effort required to a promise affects its perceived or actual trustworthiness. We find that higher effort promises lead to greater trust, but find no corresponding increase in trustworthiness.

為瞭解兒童在認知發展行為的表現，本研究招募國小一年級學童56名，五年級學童32名參與實驗進行。應用囚犯困境賽局與最後通牒賽局之架構設計兩個遊戲，來檢測兒童在合作與分享行為之表現。分析受試者之背叛比率、提供數量、拒絕比率等實驗資料，來檢測年齡、性別以及長幼關係是否會造成顯著影響。 實驗結果發現： （1）年齡較大兒童較傾向較合作且拒絕比率較低，這個結果和認知發展理論的結論一致。 （2）受試者資料在性別效果的假設檢定結果都不顯著。 （3）年齡較小兒童的平均提供數量都大於一半，這個結果和最後通牒賽局的理論預測相反。（4）對手為不同年齡時的背叛比率和拒絕比率都比對手為同年齡時低，這個結果支持國小開設混齡教育課程。 / This paper studies children’s behavior in an ultimatum game and a prisoner’s dilemma game with 56 children of age 7 and 32 children of age 11. With the experimental data of defect ratio, offer quantity and rejection ratio, we tested the age, sex and seniority effects under these two games. The experimental findings are as follows. （1）The older children are more cooperative and have lower rejection ratio than younger ones. These results are consistent with the developmental psychology theories. （2） We observe no significant sex effect in the three tests. （3） For younger children, the average offer quantity is higher than fifty percent, this is different from theoretical prediction and literature results.（4）We found that for pairs consisting of subjects of different ages, The defect ratio and rejection ratio are lower than pairs of the same age subjects. This evidence may provide support for mixed-age education program for some courses in elementary school.

Cooperative, altruistic and fairness-exhibiting behavior is an important topic in evolutionary and behavioral biology and the mechanisms leading to its evolution, ultimate as well as proximate precursors, are subject of much research in biological as well as social sciences, theoretical as well as experimental work. In light of the life history theory, I focused on the connection of one's health state and cooperative behavior in humans and tested the hypothesis that more healthy individuals would manifest more cooperative tendencies (as they would have more opportunities of future interactions and long-term benefits), and conversely. The data, obtained from a sample of university students engaged in experimental games (Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, Expanded Ultimatum Game, Trust Game, and Reversed Dictator Game) and a health and personality-focused questionnaire, did not corroborate this hypothesis. My other hypotheses - that better memory and lower temporal discounting would be related to more cooperative behavior (stemming from the conditions for reciprocal cooperation) - were supported by the data, albeit only partially in the case of memory. I also used the data from the five experimental games to briefly describe the proportions of different types of behavior (self-regarding, altruistic,...