Does consultation improve decision making?

This paper reports an experiment designed to test whether prior consultation within a group affects subsequent individual decision making in tasks where demonstrability of correct solutions is low. In our experiment subjects considered two paintings created by two different artists and were asked to guess which artist made each painting. We observed answers given by individuals under two treatments: in one, subjects were allowed the opportunity to consult with other participants before making their private decisions; in the other there was no such opportunity. Our primary findings are that subjects in the first treatment evaluate the opportunity to consult positively but they perform significantly worse and earn significantly less.Consultation; Decision making; Group decisions; Individual decisions

06-03 "Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry"

Since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, the U.S. market prices of soybeans and corn have dropped 21% and 32%, respectively. These commodities are now sold on the market at a price below what they cost to produce. If U.S. agricultural policies contribute to the prevalence of below-cost soybeans and corn, then the beneficiaries of such policies include the consumers of these products, particularly the industrial operations for which they are important raw materials. Most significant of these operations are corporate-owned livestock production facilities. This paper focuses on the broiler chicken industry, which, in the United States, is fully industrialized and vertically integrated. We compare average costs of production with market prices for corn and soybeans, then use these cost-price margins to estimate the implicit subsidies to broiler producers due to feed prices that are below production costs. We find that the broiler industry gained monetary benefits averaging $1.25 billion per year in the period following the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill (1997-2005). In contrast, broiler industry gains averaged a much smaller$377 million per year between 1986 and 1996. We conclude that the corporate broiler industry is a major winner from recent changes to U.S. agriculture policy, while family farmers and taxpayers lose out. This finding is not significantly altered when we adjust our calculations to account for the overvaluation of agricultural land, nor does it appear to reverse under future cost/price scenarios. As policymakers turn their attention to the 2007 Farm Bill, they would do well to examine the ways in which agribusiness firms in general, and industrial livestock operations in particular, benefit from policies ostensibly designed to support family farmers.

07-04 "Living High on the Hog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy, and the Structural Transformation of Swine Production"

U.S. farm policy reforms in 1996 produced significant overproduction of supported crops, with prices falling to levels that were often below average farm production costs. Among the beneficiaries of the policy shift were the largest corporate purchasers of supported crops, as they saw a steady supply of low-priced inputs. Industrial livestock firms were among the most significant buyers of U.S. corn and soybeans, the main components of livestock feed. Filling an important gap in the literature, this paper estimates the savings to industrial hog operations between 1997 and 2005 from feed components priced at levels below their production costs. The savings are found to be significant. We also find that industrial hog companies benefited from weak federal regulation of environmental pollution from livestock operations. We estimate the costs to industrial hog firms of compliance with new environmental regulations regarding mitigation of surface-water contamination from excess manure concentrations. This cost is also found to be significant. We assess the implications of these findings for the continued consolidation and industrialization of the industry. We find that mid-sized diversified farms that grow their own feed may well be able to compete on cost with large-scale industrial operations if the latter pay full cost for their feed and have to pay for just one part of their externalized pollution costs.

How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?

We examine confidence in own absolute performance using two elicitation procedures: selfreported (non-incentivised) confidence and an incentivised procedure that elicits the certainty equivalent of a bet based on performance. The former procedure reproduces the "hard-easy effect" (overconfidence in easy tasks and underconfidence in hard tasks) found in a large number of studies using non-incentivised self-reports. The latter procedure produces general underconfidence, which is somewhat reduced when we filter out the effects of risk attitudes. However, even after controlling for risk attitudes our incentivised procedure leads to significant underconfidence, and does not lead to better calibration between confidence and performance than non-incentivised self-reports. Finally, we find that self-reported confidence correlates significantly with features of individual risk attitudes including parameters of individual probability weighting

How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?

We examine the relationship between confidence in own absolute performance and risk attitudes using two elicitation procedures: self-reported (non-incentivised) confidence and an incentivised procedure that elicits the certainty equivalent of a bet based on performance. The former procedure reproduces the "hard-easy effect" (overconfidence in easy tasks and underconfidence in hard tasks) found in a large number of studies using non-incentivised self-reports. The latter procedure produces general underconfidence, which is significantly reduced, but not eliminated when we filter out the effects of risk attitudes. Finally, we find that self-reported confidence correlates significantly with features of individual risk attitudes including parameters of individual probability weighting

Standard setting in Australian medical schools

Background: Standard setting of assessment is critical in quality assurance of medical programs. The aims of this study were to identify and compare the impact of methods used to establish the passing standard by the 13 medical schools who participated in the 2014 Australian Medical Schools Assessment Collaboration (AMSAC). Methods: A survey was conducted to identify the standard setting procedures used by participating schools. Schools standard setting data was collated for the 49 multiple choice items used for benchmarking by AMSAC in 2014. Analyses were conducted for nine schools by their method of standard setting and key characteristics of 28 panel members from four schools. Results: Substantial differences were identified between AMSAC schools that participated in the study, in both the standard setting methods and how particular techniques were implemented. The correlation between the item standard settings data by school ranged from − 0.116 to 0.632. A trend was identified for panel members to underestimate the difficulty level of hard items and overestimate the difficulty level of easy items for all methods. The median derived cut-score standard across schools was 55% for the 49 benchmarking questions. Although, no significant differences were found according to panel member standard setting experience or clinicians versus scientists, panel members with a high curriculum engagement generally had significantly lower expectations of borderline candidates (p = 0.044). Conclusion: This study used a robust assessment framework to demonstrate that several standard setting techniques are used by Australian medical schools, which in some cases use different techniques for different stages of their program. The implementation of the most common method, the Modified Angoff standard setting approach was found to vary markedly. The method of standard setting used had an impact on the distribution of expected minimally competent student performance by item and overall, with the passing standard varying by up to 10%. This difference can be attributed to the method of standard setting because the ASMSAC items have been shown over time to have consistent performance levels reflecting similar cohort ability. There is a need for more consistency in the method of standard setting used by medical schools in Australia

Treatment of reference alternatives in stated choice surveys for air travel choice behaviour

Stated Choice (SC) surveys are increasingly being used instead of Revealed Preference (RP) surveys for the study of air travel choice behaviour. In many cases, the choice situations presented in these SC surveys are constructed around an observed trip, where this is often included as one of the alternatives. Classically, these RP alternatives have been treated in the same way as the SC alternatives. The applications presented in this paper show that this potentially leads to biased results, and that it is important to recognise the differences in the nature of the two types of alternative. Additionally, the paper discusses issues caused by respondents who consistently prefer the RP alternative over the SC alternatives, a common phenomenon in such SC data

Consumption experience, choice experience and the endowment effect

This paper reports an experiment investigating how different kinds of experience influence the endowment effect. Previous studies have investigated how the endowment effect is influenced by experience gained through repetition of decision problems and trading in natural and experimental markets. In this study we explore how it is influenced by experience of consuming elements of a potential endowment and by experience of choosing prior to acquiring an endowment. We find evidence of an endowment effect and that measured loss aversion predicts the reluctance to trade. We find no effect of consumption experience. Choice experience increases trading. Finally, we find evidence of a new species of 'splitting effect', whereby acquiring an endowment in two instalments significantly reduces trading

Explaining focal points: Cognitive hierarchy theory versus team reasoning

This paper reports experimental tests of two alternative explanations of how players use focal points to select equilibria in one-shot coordination games. Cognitive hierarchy theory explains coordination as the result of common beliefs about players' pre-reflective inclinations towards the relevant strategies; the theory of team reasoning explains it as the result of the players' using a non-standard form of reasoning. We report two experiments. One finds strong support for team reasoning; the other supports cognitive hierarchy theory. In the light of additional questionnaire evidence, we conclude that players' reasoning is sensitive to the decision context