Search

We propose a simple mechanism of mimetic dominance whereby a person’s valuation for consuming an object or possessing an attribute is increasing in others’ unmet desire for it. Such mimetic preferences help explain a host of market anomalies and generate novel predictions in a variety of domains. In bilateral exchange, people exhibit a social endowment effect, and there is an increased demand for goods that become relatively more scarce. A classic monopolist earns excess profit by randomly excluding some people from being able to purchase the product. We test the predictions of the model empirically across several exchange environments. When auctioning a private good, we find that randomly excluding people from the opportunity to bid substantially increases average bids amongst those who retain this option. Furthermore, exclusion leads to greater expected revenue than increasing competition through inclusion. This effect is absent when bidders know that those who are excluded have lower desires for the good. We demonstrate that mimetic preferences matter even for basic exchange: a person’s demand for a good increases substantially when others are explicitly excluded from the opportunity to buy the same kind of good. Mimetic preferences have implications for both price and non-price based methods of exclusion: the model predicts Veblen effects, rationalizes attitudes against redistribution and trade, and provides a novel motive for social stratification and discrimination.

This paper explains the nonneutrality of money from two assumptions: (1) consumers dislike paying prices that exceed some fair markup on firms’ marginal costs; and (2) consumers under infer marginal costs from available information. After an increase in money supply, consumers underappreciate the increase in nominal marginal costs and hence partially misattribute higher prices to higher markups; they perceive transactions as less fair, which increases the price elasticity of their demand for goods; firms respond by reducing markups; in equilibrium, output increases. By raising perceived markups, increased money supply inflicts a psychological cost on consumers that can offset the benefit of increased output.

We develop a simple dynamic model of decision making in the presence of moral constraints. Norm violations induce a temporal feeling of guilt that depreciates with time. Due to endogenous fluctuations of guilt, people exhibit a dynamic inconsistency in social preferences—a behavior we term conscience accounting. We test the predictions of the model through two experiments in which people first have to make an ethical decision, and subsequently decide whether to donate to charity. We find that those who chose unethically were more likely to donate than those who did not. As predicted, donation rates were higher when the opportunity to donate came sooner after the unethical choice than later. Combined, our theoretical and empirical findings suggest a mechanism by which prosocial behavior is likely to occur within temporal brackets following an unethical choice.

We develop a dynamic model where people decide in the presence of moral constraints and test the predictions of the model through two experiments. Norm violations induce a temporal feeling of guilt that depreciates with time. Due to such fluctuations of guilt, people exhibit an endogenous temporal inconsistency in social preferences—a behavior we term conscience accounting. In our experiments people first have to make an ethical decision, and subsequently decide whether to donate to charity. We find that those who chose unethically were more likely to donate than those who did not. As predicted, donation rates were higher when the opportunity to donate came sooner after the unethical choice than later. Combined, our theoretical and empirical findings suggest a mechanism by which prosocial behavior is likely to occur within temporal brackets following an unethical choice.

Consider a standard single-agent quasilinear mechanism design problem with a potentially large type space. We wish to provide an upper bound to the principal’s payoff loss if she operates on the basis of a discrete approximation rather than the true type space. We show that, if the principal simply uses the mechanism that is optimal for the approximate type space, the loss cannot be bound even as the approximate type space converges to the true one. We propose instead the Profit-Participation algorithm, whereby the principal first computes the optimal mechanism for the approximate type but then she discounts the resulting prices in a way that is proportional to her payoff under the approximate type space for each possible allocation. We bound the principal’s payoff loss and show that it vanishes as approximate type space converges to the true one. We apply our results to situations where the principal faces: (i) computation costs; (ii) search costs; or (iii) model uncertainty.