The experiments related to alcohol and economic decision-making. First study attempting to test 3 sets of embedded hypotheses regarding how alcohol influences our choices. Conducting games, showing the effects of alcohol on the decision-making process.
Аннотация к работе
The offers of same relative value (for example, sender offers 75, when his/her endowment is 70, or 55, when his/her endowment is 50, which are both one step higher than the endowment value), are likely to face differing rejection patterns due to receiver seeing the possible range of not chosen options (75 is almost the maximal offer possible, while 55 is far from top offers). Design used in studies on the games (Gueth et al., 2011) was used to work on the specific versions of the games, including a change in measurement units to make the tasks look different before and after alcohol. For instance, players in the four games (Falk Fehr Fichbacher 2003) will typically fail to recognize what games are more and less inoffensive for the receiver. For example, the game where proposer has two same options of offers is expected to receive much less rejects than the one where proposers can give 80 percent either to himself or the partner and chooses to give less to the partner. For games from set 2 and 3 (those requiring interaction between players from opposing teams), players are paired randomly for each task sheet for outcome calculation.Partner’s choice of having the maximum possible reward becomes more tolerated after drinking when endowment is low, but choosing to have just a bit more than the partner faces more reject than before alcohol when there is still a range of superior options. Players choose to be more humble in deciding their own reward when the partner’s endowment is high, but not when his/her endowment is medium or low. In Generosity game players indeed become less sensitive to their own losses, but this conclusion does not have enough support across all endowment instances and Envy game results. In strategic interaction, repetition serves as a source of retaliation motives, which become enhanced for those having consumed alcohol. However, the results showed interesting nuances in behavior which were not accounted for before (f.e. individuals starting to accept equal division of reward more after alcohol, but only for when their endowment is high).
Вывод
The significant effect of alcohol can be observed in Envy and Impunity games, as well as in in-pair choice of strategic offers. Individuals feel more compassionate towards their partners, if the final outcome depends on their own choice only. Envy decreases after alcohol when own endowment is high. Partner’s choice of having the maximum possible reward becomes more tolerated after drinking when endowment is low, but choosing to have just a bit more than the partner faces more reject than before alcohol when there is still a range of superior options. Players choose to be more humble in deciding their own reward when the partner’s endowment is high, but not when his/her endowment is medium or low. In Generosity game players indeed become less sensitive to their own losses, but this conclusion does not have enough support across all endowment instances and Envy game results.
In strategic interaction, repetition serves as a source of retaliation motives, which become enhanced for those having consumed alcohol. However, the participants did not lose sensitivity to the left-out option presence in strategic interaction, neither have they become less consistent in their preferences.
The hypotheses stated before the experiment could not be confirmed in the given form, which reflects the pioneering nature of this work. We could not observe increased inconsistency in preferences, decreased influence of social norms, or indifference between degrees of inoffensiveness of offers. However, the results showed interesting nuances in behavior which were not accounted for before (f.e. individuals starting to accept equal division of reward more after alcohol, but only for when their endowment is high).
This work incorporated procedures of alcohol treatment never used before in an attempt to test the hypotheses never tested before. The results obtained helped to make clear the directions further research in the field can move into, and the experience it allowed to get can prove useful for ensuring finer outcomes of the subsequent studies. All papers which had been given to participants, as well as the survey questions, are included in the attachment for possible use and reference.
The following alterations can be made in future experiments to obtain more certain, significant and life-consistent results: 1) Increase in dosage - 0,5% BAC is the lower border for mild intoxication. More sever intoxication levels will provide more changes in decisions. According to the survey, the average dose a participant obtained during a drinking evening is about 3,5 times higher than the one consumed at the experiment.
2) Less people with economic background in the sample - due to economic games being a frequent part of the studies, economic students make their choices with a similar pattern, completing such games with results not actually representing their preferences and beliefs. Alternatively, a more real-life form of game can be used instead of tasks on paper.
3) Two days for each group - leaving at least a daylong gap between completing the first three sets of tasks and drinking alcohol and completing the rest of the tasks. This way, participants are less likely to rely on their memory when filling tasks after alcohol consumption.
4) Placebo effect incorporation - existence of non-alcoholic vodka leaves immense possibilities for placebo studies. Its incorporation will allow to develop the research of alcohol influence into numerous new branches. alcohol economics decision making
Список литературы
1. Allen, A. J., Meda, S. A., Skudlarski, P., Calhoun, V. D., Astur, R., Ruopp, K. C. and Pearlson, G. D. (2009), Effects of Alcohol on Performance on a Distraction Task During Simulated Driving. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33: 617-625.
2. James M. Bjork, Jodi M. Gilman, The effects of acute alcohol administration on the human brain: Insights from neuroimaging, Neuropharmacology, 2014, vol 84, pp. 101-110
3. GE Bolton, E Katok, R Zwick, Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness International journal of game theory, 1998, vol. 27, pp. 269-299
4. Dirk Breitmeier , Irina Seeland-Schulze, Hartmut Hecker & Udo Schneider,Clinical study:The influence of blood alcohol concentrations of around 0.03% on neuropsychological functions-a double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation, 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation, Society for the Study of Addiction
5. Daniel R. Burghart, Paul W. Glimcher, Stephanie C. Lazzaro, An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar…, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2013, vol. 46 (3), pp. 215-246
6. Casal S., Ploner M. Guth W. Would you mind if I get more? An experimental study of the envy game Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2012 vol 84 (3) pp 857-865
7. Corazzini L, Filippin A, Vanin P Economic Behavior under the Influence of Alcohol: An Experiment on Time Preferences, Risk-Taking, and Altruism, 2015
8. Jodi M. Gilman, Ashley R. Smith, Vijay A. Ramchandani, Reza Momenan ANDDANIEL W. Hommer, The effect of intravenous alcohol on the neural correlates of risky decision making in healthy social drinkers, Addiction Biology, 2012 vol 17 (2), pp. 465-478
9. Guth W., The Generosity Game and calibration of inequity aversion The Journal of Socio-Economics, 2010, vol. 39 (2), pp. 155-157
10. Guth W., Vittoria Levati M., Ploner M. An experimental study of the generosity game. Theory and decision, 2012, vol. 72, pp 51-63
11. John T P Hustad, Kate B Carey, Using calculations to estimate blood alcohol concentrations for naturally occurring drinking episodes: a validity study. 2005, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(1), 130-138
12. Fanny Kreuscha, Aurelie Vilennea, and Etienne Quertemont, Assessing the Stimulant and Sedative Effects of Alcohol With Explicit and Implicit Measures in a Balanced Placebo Design, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(6), 923-930 2013
13. Scott D. Lane, Don R. Cherek, Cynthia J. Pietras Alcohol effects on human risk taking. Psychopharmacology, 2004, Vol. 172 (1), pp. 68-77
14. Shashwath A. Meda1, , Vince D. , Robert S. Astur, Beth M. Turner, Kathryn Ruopp, Godfrey D. Pearlson, Alcohol dose effects on brain circuits during simulated driving: an FMRI study. Human Brain Mapping 2008
15. L Michalak, K Trocki, J Bond, Religion and alcohol in the US National Alcohol Survey: how important is religion for abstention and drinking? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2007, Vol. 87 (2-3), pp. 268-280
16. Samuelson, P. "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumers" Behaviour". Economica, 1938, 5 (17), pp. 61-71.
17. Wong, S. Foundations of Paul Samuelson"s Revealed Preference Theory: A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction. Routledge. 1978