Paternalism and Deliberation: An Experiment on Making Formal Rules

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.00863
• Title: Paternalism and Deliberation: An Experiment on Making Formal Rules
• Author: Max R. P. Grossmann (University of Cologne)
• Classification: econ.GN (Economics - General Economics), q-fin.EC (Quantitative Finance - Economics)
• Publication Date: January 3, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00863

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between soft paternalism and hard paternalism by testing two types of restrictions—waiting periods and hard caps on risky behavior. The experiment employs high-risk decision scenarios to investigate how the temporal structure of decision-making influences paternalistic policymaking. Results demonstrate that exogenous deliberation has no effect on cap-setting, while endogenously-mandated waiting periods function as additive rather than substitutive restrictions. Choice architects believe that over time, decision-makers will reduce risk-taking and move closer to the choice architects' subjective ideal choices.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core research question addresses whether soft paternalism policies (such as mandatory waiting periods) and hard paternalism policies (such as behavioral restrictions) exhibit substitutive relationships. Does deliberation influence policymakers' respect for decision-makers' autonomy?

Significance

1. Policy Relevance: Mandatory waiting periods are widely applied in high-risk decision domains including medical procedures, firearm purchases, and abortion, making understanding their relationship with other policy tools crucial for policy design
2. Theoretical Value: Fills an empirical research gap regarding the relationship between soft and hard paternalism
3. Behavioral Economics Contribution: Explores how temporal structure affects decision quality and policy intervention

Limitations of Existing Research

• Lack of direct empirical research on the relationship between soft and hard paternalism
• Insufficient understanding of policymakers' psychological models
• Absence of systematic analysis of policy tool complementarity

Core Contributions

1. First empirical investigation of substitutive/complementary relationships between soft and hard paternalism policies
2. Innovative experimental design: Combines high-risk decision tasks (BRET) with policy-making experiments
3. Discovery of policy complementarity: Waiting periods function as "additive restrictions" rather than substitutes
4. Revelation of policymakers' psychological models: Deliberation is believed to reduce risk-taking
5. Provision of distributional policy theory: Different policy tools target different segments of the decision-maker distribution

Methodology

Task Definition

Input: Risk choice scenarios faced by decision-makers (box-opening task) and temporal structure Output: Policy rules set by choice architects (CAs) Constraints: Real monetary incentives, pre-registered analysis, representative samples

Experimental Architecture

Chooser Experiment

Employs the Bomb Risk Elicitation Task (BRET):

• 25 boxes, each worth $20
• One random box contains a "bomb" that eliminates all earnings upon opening
• Maximum total reward of $500, the highest-stakes risk experiment in the literature

Four Treatment Conditions

1. Once: Immediate decision-making after learning rules
2. Delay: Decision-making one day after learning rules
3. Undo: Immediate decision-making with option to revise the following day
4. EndoDelay: CA determines decision timing

Choice Architect Experiment

• Sample: Representative U.S. sample via TESS platform (N=2,702)
• Task: Establish rules for decision-makers
• Measured Variables:
  • Normative judgments (ideal number of boxes to open)
  • Behavioral expectations (expected number of boxes opened)
  • Predicted well-being
  • Policy choices (cap-setting, waiting periods)

Technical Innovations

1. Two-tier experimental design: Separation of decision-makers and policymakers to avoid self-serving bias
2. High-stakes real incentives: $500 maximum reward ensures decision authenticity
3. Temporal structure manipulation: Systematic variation of decision timing
4. Pre-registered analysis: All hypotheses and analytical methods pre-registered to enhance result credibility

Experimental Setup

Data Collection

• CA Experiment: Conducted November 2023 via NORC AmeriSpeak
• Chooser Experiment: Conducted October 2024 at Cologne laboratory
• Sample Size: 2,702 CAs, 4 decision-makers (one per treatment condition)

Evaluation Metrics

• Primary Metric: Cap-setting (Cap)
• Secondary Metrics: Normative judgments, behavioral expectations, prediction errors
• Policy Metrics: Waiting period implementation rate, intervention rate

Comparison Methods

Between-treatment comparisons:

• Once vs. Delay (exogenous deliberation effect)
• Once vs. Undo (revision opportunity effect)
• Once vs. EndoDelay (endogenous policy choice effect)

Implementation Details

• Statistical Methods: Welch t-tests, proportion tests, OLS regression
• Multiple Testing Adjustment: Holm method
• Robustness Checks: HC3 heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors

Experimental Results

Main Findings

Result 1: Policymakers' Basic Beliefs

• 92.8% of CAs believe caps should be ≥ normative judgment
• 77.2% of CAs believe average decision-makers open too many boxes
• Mean cap: 17.5 boxes; mean normative: 9.6 boxes; mean expectation: 11.4 boxes

Result 2: Partial Preservation of Autonomy

• Modal choice α=0 (complete freedom) represents approximately one-third
• Median α=0.333, mean α=0.42
• Replicates findings from Grossmann & Ockenfels (2024)

Result 3: Deliberation Has No Effect on Hard Intervention

Key Finding: No significant differences in cap-setting across treatments

• Once vs. Delay: difference=-0.329, p=0.421
• Once vs. Undo: difference=-0.067, p=0.874
• Delay vs. Undo: difference=0.396, p=0.340

Result 4: Waiting Periods Function as Additive Restrictions

• 78.0% of CAs implement some intervention in EndoDelay vs. 67.9% in Once
• 38.7% implement waiting periods, of which 25.2% simultaneously set caps
• Critically: CAs implementing waiting periods do not relax cap-setting

Result 5: Deliberation Alters Expectations but Not Policy

• Once vs. Delay prediction error: 5.005 vs. 4.398 (p=0.009)
• CAs believe deliberation causes decision-makers to move closer to CA's ideal choices

Ablation Experiments

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Analysis

Interaction analysis reveals two mechanisms:

• Story 1: Deliberation brings decision-makers closer to CA norms (not supported)
• Story 2: Deliberation universally reduces risk-taking (supported)

Endogenous Choice Consistency

CAs choosing Once/Delay in EndoDelay behave similarly to exogenously-assigned CAs, validating the endogenous choice mechanism.

Statistical Significance

• After multiple testing adjustment, the result that waiting periods function as additive restrictions remains significant (p<0.001)
• The effect of deliberation on prediction errors is marginally significant under conservative adjustment

Related Work

Paternalism Research

• Ambuehl et al. (2021): Established the CA-Chooser experimental paradigm
• Grossmann (2024): Investigates the relationship between information and paternalism
• Feinberg (1989): Conceptual distinction between soft and hard paternalism

Deliberation Research

• Behavioral Economics: Effects of time pressure on decision quality
• Policy Research: Effectiveness of mandatory waiting periods across domains
• Psychology: Hot/cold system theory

Policy Tool Research

• Policy Combinations: Multi-tool applications in environmental economics
• Behavioral Interventions: Relationship between nudges and traditional regulation

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Policy Complementarity: Waiting periods and cap restrictions are complementary rather than substitutive policy tools
2. Deliberation Paradox: CAs believe deliberation improves decisions but do not relax restrictions accordingly
3. Distributional Policy Theory: Different tools target different segments of the decision-maker distribution
4. Subjective Rule-Making: Policy-making reflects CAs' subjective judgments and psychological models

Limitations

1. Sample Constraints: U.S. sample only; cultural generalizability remains uncertain
2. Task Specificity: External validity of the BRET task
3. Short-term Effects: Only considers one-day waiting periods
4. Incentive Structure: Relatively simple incentive mechanisms for CA decisions

Future Directions

1. Cross-cultural Research: Policy preferences across different cultural contexts
2. Long-term Effects: Impact of longer waiting periods
3. Real-world Policy: Validation in actual policy environments
4. Individual Differences: Effects of CA characteristics on policy choices

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Rigor: Pre-registered design, high statistical power, representative sample
2. Theoretical Contribution: First empirical test of soft-hard paternalism relationship
3. Policy Relevance: Directly addresses real-world policy questions
4. Experimental Innovation: Integration of high-stakes real decisions with policy-making
5. Transparency: Complete data and code disclosure

Weaknesses

1. External Validity: Differences between laboratory/survey environments and real policymaking
2. Mechanism Understanding: Insufficient exploration of deeper CA motivations
3. Policy Costs: Failure to consider waiting period implementation costs
4. Dynamic Effects: Absence of repeated game or learning effects

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important empirical evidence for paternalism theory
2. Policy Implications: Warns of potential regulatory burden accumulation from multiple policy tools
3. Methodological Contribution: Establishes new paradigm for policy experimentation research
4. Interdisciplinary: Bridges behavioral economics, political economy, and public policy

Applicable Scenarios

1. Policy Design: High-risk decision domains requiring multi-tool combinations
2. Regulatory Research: Understanding interactions among different intervention measures
3. Behavioral Interventions: Designing stratified policies for heterogeneous populations
4. Institutional Design: Mechanism design considering policymakers' psychological models

References

Primary references include:

• Ambuehl, S., Bernheim, B. D., & Ockenfels, A. (2021). What motivates paternalism? American Economic Review
• Feinberg, J. (1989). Harm to self. Oxford University Press
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
• Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2013). The "bomb" risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Overall Assessment: This is a well-designed experimental study with pioneering significance in empirical research on paternalistic policy. Despite limitations regarding external validity, its rigorous methodology and important theoretical contributions make it significant literature in the field. The study's revelation of policy tool complementarity provides important insights for understanding the complexity of modern regulation.