Cancel the Deal? An Experimental Study on the Exploitation of Irrational Consumers

References

• Agarwal S, Chomsisengphet S, Mahoney N, Stroebel J (2015) Regulating consumer financial products: Evidence from credit cards. Quart. J. Econom. 130(1):111–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akbaş M, Ariely D, Yuksel S (2019) When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 161:114–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof GA, Shiller RJ (2015) Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almås I, Cappelen AW, Tungodden B (2020) Cutthroat capitalism versus cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians? J. Political Econom. 128(5):1753–1788.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ambuehl S, Bernheim DB, Ockenfels A (2021) What motivates paternalism? An experimental study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(3):787–830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Aydin D, Barton B, Bernheim BD, Naecker J (2020) When fair isn’t fair: Understanding choice reversals involving social preferences. J. Political Econom. 128(5):1673–1711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apffelstaedt A, Mechtenberg L (2021) Competition for context-sensitive consumers. Management Sci. 67(5):2828–2844.Link, Google Scholar
• Arad A, Rubinstein A (2018) The people’s perspective on libertarian-paternalistic policies. J. Law Econom. 61(2):311–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arneson RJ (1980) Mill versus paternalism. Ethics 90(4):470–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balafoutas L, Kerschbamer R (2020) Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions. J. Behav. Experiment. Finance 26:100285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bar-Gill O, Stone R (2012) Pricing misperceptions: Explaining pricing structure in the cell phone service market. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 9(3):430–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Fehr E, Herz H (2014) The intrinsic value of decision rights. Econometrica 82(6):2005–2039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Cappelen AW, Hermes H, Skivenes M, Tungodden B (2023) Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States. DICE Discussion Paper No. 400, Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Dusseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
• Bhargava S, Loewenstein G, Sydnor J (2017) Choose to lose: Health plan choices from a menu with dominated option. Quart. J. Econom. 132(3):1319–1372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharjee A, Dana J, Baron J (2017) Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 113(5):671–696.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Brandts J, Ockenfels A (2005) Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. Econom. J. 115(506):1054–1076.Google Scholar
• Bolton LE, Warlop L, Alba JW (2003) Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. J. Consumer Res. 29(4):474–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boycko M, Shiller RJ (2016) Popular attitudes toward markets and democracy: Russia and United States compared 25 years later. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(5):224–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell JY (2016) Restoring rational choice: The challenge of consumer financial regulation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(5):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell JY, Jackson HE, Madrian BC, Tufano P (2011) Consumer financial protection. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(1):91–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Meissner S, Tungodden B (2024) Replication data for: Cancel the deal? An experimental study on the exploitation of irrational consumers. Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TOYM2W.Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Cramton P, List JA, Ockenfels A (2021) Market design, human behavior, and management. Management Sci. 67(9):5317–5348.Link, Google Scholar
• Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2010) Why does the law of one price fail? An experiment on index mutual funds. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(4):1405–1432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darr FP (1993) Unconscionability and price fairness. Houston Law Rev. 30:1819.Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2004) Contract design and self-control: Theory and evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):353–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, Roland M, Marteau TM (2013) Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health 13:756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dulleck U, Kerschbamer R (2006) On doctors, mechanics, and computer specialists: The economics of credence goods. J. Econom. Literature 44(1):5–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evers C, Marchiori DR, Junghans AF, Cremers J, De Ridder DTD (2018) Citizen approval of nudging interventions promoting healthy eating: The role of intrusiveness and trustworthiness. BMC Public Health 18:1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2008) Testing theories of fairness–intentions matter. Games Econom. Behav. 62(1):287–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Glätzle-Rützler D, Sutter M (2013) The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence. Eur. Econom. Rev. 64(1):369–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldman S, Johnston C (2014) Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psych. 35(3):337–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freundt J, Herz H, Kopp L (2023) Intrinsic preferences for autonomy. Working paper, University of Fribourg, Facultè des sciences èconomiques et sociales et du management, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):505–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goff SH, Noblet CL (2018) Efficient, but immoral?: Assessing market attitudes as multidimensional. Econom. Lett. 170:96–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goren P (2005) Party identification and core political values. Amer. J. Political Sci. 49(4):881–896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grubb MD (2009) Selling to overconfident consumers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):1770–1807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grubb MD (2015) Overconfident consumers in the marketplace. J. Econom. Perspect. 29(4):9–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2010) Exploiting naïveté about self-control in the credit market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(5):2279–2303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2015) On the welfare costs of naiveté in the us credit-card market. Rev. Indust. Organ. 47(3):341–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2018) Behavioral industrial organization. Bernheim BD, DellaVigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 517–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Johnen J, Kőszegi B (2021) Browsing versus studying: A pro-market case for regulation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 88(2):708–729.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jin GZ, Luca M, Martin D (2022) Complex disclosure. Management Sci. 68(5):3236–3261.Link, Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Blount S, Pfeffer J, Hunyady G (2003) Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Res. Organ. Behav. 25:53–91.Google Scholar
• Jung JY, Mellers BA (2016) American attitudes toward nudges. Judgment Decision Making 11(1):62–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1986a) Fairness and the assumptions of economics. J. Bus. 59(4):285–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler R (1986b) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):728–741.Google Scholar
• Kerschbamer R, Neururer D, Sutter M (2016) Insurance coverage of customers induces dishonesty of sellers in markets for credence goods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(27):7454–7458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B (2014) Behavioral contract theory. J. Econom. Literature 52(4):1075–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt A (2020) Behavioral constraints on price discrimination: Experimental evidence on pricing and customer antagonism. Eur. Econom. Rev. 121:103303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reisch LA, Sunstein CR (2016) Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment Decision Making 11(4):310–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz A, Scott RE (2003) Contract theory and the limits of contract law. Yale Law J. 113:541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stantcheva S (2021) Understanding tax policy: How do people reason? Quart. J. Econom. 136(4):2309–2369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR (2019) Which nudges do people like? A national survey. Straßheim H, Beck S, eds. Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 285–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR, Reisch LA, Rauber J (2018) A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost. Regulation Governance 12(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum D, Fox CR, Rogers T (2017) On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions. Nature Human Behav. 1(7):0130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautmann ST (2023) Procedural fairness and equality of opportunity. J. Econom. Surveys 37(5):1697–1714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warren PL, Wood DH (2014) The political economy of regulation in markets with naïve consumers. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(6):1617–1642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xia L, Monroe KB, Cox JL (2004) The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. J. Marketing 68(4):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zizzo DJ (2004) Inequality and procedural fairness in a money burning and stealing experiment. Cowell F, ed. Inequality, Welfare and Income Distribution: Experimental Approaches, vol. 11, Research on Economic Inequality (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 215–247.Crossref, Google Scholar