During economic hardships, politicians often leverage citizens' discontent to obtain support for anti-immigration policies. At the onset of the pandemic crisis in Italy, some politicians reported on the extent of migratory flows distortedly to create a connection between migrants and the spread of the virus. This paper tests whether political campaigns scapegoating migrants for the health crisis affect social, political, and economic attitudes and behaviors. We implement an online nationally-representative survey experiment with some money-incentivized tasks to analyze the effects of information provision about immigration on attitudes and behavior. We manipulate the quantity and the content of information, including facts also emphasizing the potential health consequences of immigration. Preliminary results show that information campaigns pessimistically highlighting immigration and health threats do not generate sizeable add-on effects compared to those based on immigration only. If anything, they marginally increased disappointment towards Italians, reduced social and institutional trust, and undermined partisanship among extreme-right supporters. Overall, such campaigns appear relatively ineffective or, when successful, counterproductive from social and political viewpoints.

Team: Michela Boldrini, Bocconi University; Pierluigi Conzo (ESt and CCA) and Roberto Zotti (ESt)

The existence of gender bias in hiring and job promotions is a major issue affecting gender equality. The online experiment investigates the role of gender stereotypes and homophily in producing gender discrimination in career advancement. Experimental subjects are requested to evaluate the resumes of three candidates for a promotion and to choose who has to be promoted. The experiment is designed to avoid the social desirability bias typical of experiments involving fictitious situations. Participants face alternatively three female candidates, three male candidates, and a female and two male candidates.

Team: Matteo Migheli and Silvia B. Pasqua (ESt); Renzo Carriero and Marianna Filandri (CPS)

We investigate the effect of social media endorsements (likes, retweets, shares) on individuals’ policy preferences. In two pre-registered online experiments (N=1,384), we exposed participants to non-neutral policy messages about the COVID-19 pandemic (emphasizing either public health or economic activity as a policy priority) while varying the level of endorsements of these messages. Our experimental treatment did not result in aggregate changes to policy views. However, our analysis indicates that active social media users did respond to the variation in engagement metrics. In particular, we find a strong positive treatment effect concentrated on a minority of individuals who correctly answered a factual manipulation check regarding the endorsements. Our results suggest that though only a fraction of individuals appear to pay conscious attention to endorsement metrics, they may be influenced by these social cues.

Team: Pierluigi Conzo (ESt and CCA); Laura K. Taylor, University College Dublin; Juan S. Morales, Wilfrid Laurier University; Margaret Samahita, University College Dublin; Andrea Gallice (ESOMAS and CCA)

We run a series of experiments characterized by real uncertain events eliciting matching probability through a multiple price list and measuring insensitivity and reaction to ambiguity. Moreover, we are using affect-rich scenarios against no affect-rich scenarios controlling for competence as further elements affecting ambiguity. To measure ambiguity, we adopted Baillon et al. (2021)’s belief hedges approach. This approach allows us when testing ambiguity to concentrate only on belief elicitation avoiding assumptions over the utility function. In the same experiments, we also measured reaction to artificial ambiguity 3 color Ellsberg Paradox, subjects' preference towards risk and response time in choosing. Three are the aspects on which we concentrate in our research: whether contest of uncertainty affects ambiguity response; which is the relation of these different responses to individual risk aversion and response time in the experiments. We analyze these aspects taking into consideration the ambiguity indexes used in Baillon et al. (2021) and other additivity indexes used in the literature and the contraposition also present in the literature between artificial and event uncertainty.

PI: Anna Maffioletti (ESOMAS)

This project analyzes factors that influence prosocial behavior, focusing on the role of frames, meant as mental models that emerge in given circumstances leading individuals to define the situation in which they have to make their decisions and how different incentives – monetary and non-monetary – affect the decision process.

PI: Davide Barrera (CPS)

• Szekely, A., Bruner, D., Steinmo, S., Todor, A., Volintiru, C., & Andrighetto, G. (2023) Preferences for honesty can support cooperation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

• Aksoy, O., & Gambetta, D. (2022). Commitment through Sacrifice: How Longer Ramadan Fasting Strengthens Religiosity and Political Islam. American Sociological Review, 87(4), 555-583.

• Aksoy, O., & Gambetta, D. (2021). The politics behind the veil. European Sociological Review, 37(1), 67-88.

• Bocca, G., Romanò, S., & Barrera, D. (2021). Come stimolare la prosocialità: effetti di frame e incentivi in laboratorio. Polis, 36(2), 271-299.

• Pennesi, D. (2021). Intertemporal discrete choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, 690-706.

• Morisi, D., & Wagner, M. (2021). Bringing people closer to the elites: the effect of information on populist attitudes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research

• Lotito, G., Migheli, M., & Ortona, G. (2020). Transparency, asymmetric information and cooperation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 50(2), 267-294.

• Bellucci, D., Fuochi, G., & Conzo, P. (2020). Childhood exposure to the Second World War and financial risk taking in adult life. Journal of Economic Psychology, 79, 102196.

• Butler, J. V., Carbone, E., Conzo, P., & Spagnolo, G. (2020). Past performance and entry in procurement: An experimental investigation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 173, 179-195.

• Conzo, P., Taylor, L. K., Morales, J. S., Samahita, M., & Gallice, A. (2023). Can❤ s Change Minds? Social Media Endorsements and Policy Preferences. Social Media+ Society, 9(2).

• Maffioletti, A., Maida, A., & Scacciati, F. (2019). Happiness, life satisfaction, well-being: survey design and response analysis. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 16(2), 277-313.

• Maffioletti, A., & Santoni, M. (2019). Emotion and knowledge in decision making under uncertainty. Games, 10(4), 36.

• Morisi, D. (2018). Choosing the risky option: Information and risk propensity in referendum campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(3), 447-469.

• Pennesi, D. (2017). Uncertain discount and hyperbolic preferences. Theory and Decision, 83(3), 315-336.

• Assandri, M., Maffioletti, A., Piacenza, M., & Turati, G. (2018). Risk attitudes and preferences for redistribution: New evidence from the lab. CESifo Economic Studies, 64(3), 489-515.

• Becchetti, L., Castriota, S., & Conzo, P. (2017). Disaster, aid, and preferences: The long-run impact of the tsunami on giving in Sri Lanka. World Development, 94, 157-173.

• Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A., & Novarese, M. (2017). Are Worst Students Really More Overconfident? A Preliminary Test of Different Measures. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 18(2).

•