We introduce a new method for measuring the decision to lie in experiments. In the game, the decision to lie increases own payment independent of the counterpart's decision, but potentially at a cost for the counterpart. We identify at the individual level the decision to lie, and measure how individuals react to different incentives to lie. Furthermore we investigate how lying behavior changes over time. Our method allows us to classify people into types, including those who never lie, those who always lie, and those who react to incentives to lie. We suggest this method as a useful instrument for examining factors that influence the decision to lie.

Many initiatives worldwide aim at improving financial literacy through targeted education programs, yet there is little evidence regarding their effectiveness. We examine the impact of a short financial education program on teenagers in German high schools.Our findings reveal that the training program significantly increases teenagers' interest in financial matters and their financial knowledge, especially their ability to properly assess the riskiness of assets. Behaviorally, we observe a decrease in the prevalence of self-reported impulse purchases, but at the same time find no evidence of a significant increase in savings. Our data reveals strong gender differences already before adulthood: Girls show less interest in, and self-assessed knowledge of, financial matters, and are less likely to save.

We examine two explanations for peer effects in risk taking: relative payoff concerns and preferences that depend on peer choices. We vary experimentally whether individuals can condition a simple lottery choice on the lottery choice or the lottery allocation of a peer. We find that peer effects increase significantly, almost double, when peers make choices, relative to when they are allocated a lottery. In both situations, imitation is the most frequent form of peer effect. Hence, peer effects in our environment are explained by a combination of relative payoff concerns and preferences that depend on peer choices. Comparative statics analyses and structural estimation results suggest that a norm to conform to the peer may explain why peer choices matter. Our results suggest that peer choices are important in generating peer effects and hence have important implications for modeling as well as for policy.

We study the impact of financial education on intertemporal choice in adolescence. The educational program was randomly assigned among high school students, and choices were measured using an incentivized experiment. Students who participated in the program make more time-consistent choices; are more likely to allocate payments to a single payment date, as opposed to spreading payment across two dates; and display increased consistency of choice with the law of demand. These findings suggest that financial education increases the quality of intertemporal decision-making and decreases narrow bracketing. (JEL C93, D14, D15, I21, J13)

We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.