Gambling in Risk-Taking Contests: Experimental Evidence

This paper experimentally investigates excessive risk taking in contest schemes by implementing a novel stopping task based on Seel and Strack (2013). In this stylized setting, managers with contest payoffs have an incentive to delay halting projects with a negative expectation, with the induced inefficiency being highest for a moderately negative drift. The experiment systematically varies the negative drift (between-subjects) and the payoff incentives (within-subject). We find evidence for excessive risk taking in all our treatment conditions, with the non-monotonicity at least as problematic as predicted. Contrary to the theoretical predictions, this aggregate pattern of behaviour is seen even without contest incentives. Further analysis suggests that many subjects display behaviour consistent with some intrinsic motivation for taking risk. This intrinsic motive and the strategic motive for excessive risk taking reinforce the non-monotonicity. The experiment uncovers a behavioural nuance where contest incentives crowd out an intrinsic inclination to gamble

Gambling in risk-taking contests: Experimental evidence

This paper experimentally investigates risk taking in contest schemes by implementing a stopping task based on Seel and Strack (2013). In this stylized setting, managers with contest payoffs have an incentive to delay halting projects with a negative expectation, with the induced inefficiency being highest for a moderately negative drift. The experiment systematically varies the negative drift (between-subjects) and the payoff incentives (within-subject). We find evidence for risk taking in all our treatment conditions, with the non-monotonicity at least as pronounced as predicted. Contrary to the theoretical predictions, a similar pattern of behaviour persists even without contest incentives, suggesting contest incentives are not the only driver of risk-taking behaviour. Instead, observed behaviour violates expected utility maximization and is consistent with some intrinsic motivation for taking risk and myopic reasoning about the opponent. We explore the interplay between intrinsic incentives and the payment scheme and find that contest incentives might crowd out an intrinsic inclination to risk-taking

Observation of Localized Multi-Spatial-Mode Quadrature Squeezing

Quantum states of light can improve imaging whenever the image quality and resolution are limited by the quantum noise of the illumination. In the case of a bright illumination, quantum enhancement is obtained for a light field composed of many squeezed transverse modes. A possible realization of such a multi-spatial-mode squeezed state is a field which contains a transverse plane in which the local electric field displays reduced quantum fluctuations at all locations, on any one quadrature. Using a traveling-wave amplifier, we have generated a multi-spatial-mode squeezed state and showed that it exhibits localized quadrature squeezing at any point of its transverse profile, in regions much smaller than its size. We observe 75 independently squeezed regions. The amplification relies on nondegenerate four-wave mixing in a hot vapor and produces a bichromatic squeezed state. The result confirms the potential of this technique for producing illumination suitable for practical quantum imaging

Strategy revision opportunities and collusion

This paper studies whether and how strategy revision opportunities affect levels of collusion in indefinitely repeated two-player games. Consistent with standard theory, we find that such opportunities do not affect strategy choices, or collusion levels, if the game is of strategic substitutes. In games of strategic complements, by contrast, revision opportunities lead to more collusion. We discuss alternative explanations for this result

Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study

Many negotiations involve risks that are resolved ex-post. Often these risks are not incurred equally by the parties involved. We experimentally investigate bargaining situations where a residual claimant faces ex-post risk, whereas a fixed-payoff player does not. Consistent with a benchmark model, we find that residual claimants extract a risk premium, which increases in risk exposure. This premium can be high enough to make it beneficial to bargain over a risky rather than a risk-less pie. Contrary to the model's predictions, we find that the comparatively less risk averse residual claimants benefit the most from risk exposure. This is because fixed-payoff players' adopt weak bargaining strategies when the pie is risky. We find evidence for a behavioural mechanism where asymmetric exposure to risk between the two parties creates a wedge between their fairness ideas, which shifts agreements in favour of residual claimants but also increases bargaining friction

Gambling in risk-taking contests: Experimental evidence

This paper experimentally investigates risk taking in contest schemes by implementing a stopping task based on Seel and Strack (2013). In this stylized setting, managers with contest payoffs have an incentive to delay halting projects with a negative expectation, with the induced inefficiency being highest for a moderately negative drift. The experiment systematically varies the negative drift (between-subjects) and the payoff incentives (within-subject). We find evidence for risk taking in all our treatment conditions, with the non-monotonicity at least as pronounced as predicted. Contrary to the theoretical predictions, a similar pattern of behaviour persists even without contest incentives, suggesting contest incentives are not the only driver of risk-taking behaviour. Instead, observed behaviour violates expected utility maximization and is consistent with some intrinsic motivation for taking risk and myopic reasoning about the opponent. We explore the interplay between intrinsic incentives and the payment scheme and find that contest incentives might crowd out an intrinsic inclination to risk-taking.<br/

Bargaining with a residual claimant: an experimental study

Many negotiations involve risks that are resolved ex-post. Often these risks are not incurred equally by the parties involved. We experimentally investigate bargaining situations where a residual claimant faces ex-post risk, whereas a fixed-payoff player does not. Consistent with a benchmark model, we find that residual claimants extract a risk premium, which increases in risk exposure. This premium can be high enough to make it beneficial to bargain over a risky rather than a risk-less pie. Contrary to the model's predictions, we find that the comparatively less risk averse residual claimants benefit the most from risk exposure. This is because fixed-payoff players' adopt weak bargaining strategies when the pie is risky. We find evidence for a behavioural mechanism where asymmetric exposure to risk between the two parties creates a wedge between their fairness ideas, which shifts agreements in favour of residual claimants but also increases bargaining friction