Does studying economics discourage students' cooperative mind? Several surveys conducted in the United States have concluded that the answer is yes. The authors conducted a series of economic experiments and questionnaires to consider the question in Japan. The results of the prisoner's dilemma experiment and public goods questionnaires showed no differences between the behaviors of economics majors and nonmajors. The uniqueness of economics majors was found in their answers to questions concerning whether they behave honestly if they pick up money. The percentage of economics majors who said that they behave honestly was significantly lower than that of students in other disciplines.

We study differences in behavior across countries in a labor market context. To this end, we conducted a bilateral gift-exchange experiment comparing the behavior of subjects from five high-income OECD countries: Germany, Spain, Israel, Japan and the USA. We observe that in all countries, effort levels are increasing while rejection rates are decreasing in wage offers. However, we also find considerable differences in behavior across countries in both one-shot and repeated relationships, the most striking between Germany and Spain. We also discuss the influence of socioeconomic indicators and the implications of our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

Many real‐world decisions are made by individuals as representatives of groups. Most research, however, studies either individuals or groups as decision‐makers. This paper explores whether there is a general difference between a decision made as an individual and as a representative of a group in the context of a public good game. We conducted a series of experiments to test this question and to understand mechanisms contributing to potential differences. We found that representatives contributed less than individuals when they could not communicate with their constituency. However, when they could discuss their strategy before playing, they contributed at least as much as individual decision‐makers. Furthermore, when they could justify their decision after playing, they contributed even more than individual decision‐makers. We discuss potential reasons for this and directions for future research.