https://hdl.handle.net/10419/156 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:13:58 GMT 2026-09-14T01:13:58Z https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336609 Title: The Impact of Behavioral Design and Users’ Choice on Smartphone App Usage and Willingness to Pay: A Framed Field Experiment Authors: Timko, Christina; Adena, Maja Abstract: Behavioral design in smartphone apps aims at inducing certain, monetizable behavior, mainly increased engagement, measurable by usage time. Such design is rarely transparent and often restricts users' ability to make alternative choices. In a framed field experiment, we document that behavioral design doubles app usage time compared to a version without behavioral elements. Providing users with choices-simply explained and conveniently adjustable design features-reduces usage time and increases their willingness to pay for the app. These findings suggest that offering choice could pave the way for new business models based on more responsible app design. Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336609 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336611 Title: The Economics of Architecture Authors: Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M.; Pietrostefani, Elisabetta; Zhang, Ailin Abstract: We illustrate the coordination problem in the provision of distinctive architectural design that arises from design externalities within a quantitative model. To quantify the model, we conduct a quantitative review of a growing literature concerned with the costs and benefits of distinctive design as well as a survey of architectural design preferences. We find that distinctive buildings sell at a 15% premium, on average. Positive design spillovers from distinctive nearby buildings result in a 9% premium. Distinctive buildings, however, are about 25% more expensive to build. The distribution of design ratings within buildings is well described by a Fr'echet distribution with a shape parameter of about 4. Parametrising the model to match these moments, we show in counterfactual simulations that the optimal subsidy of distinctive buildings amounts to 10% of construction costs. Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336611 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336610 Title: Quantile Selection in the Gender Pay Gap Authors: Batbayar, Egshiglen; Breunig, Christoph; Haan, Peter; Ilieva, Boryana Antonova Abstract: We propose a new approach to estimate selection-corrected quantiles of the gender wage gap. Our method employs instrumental variables that explain variation in the latent variable but, conditional on the latent process, do not directly affect selection. We provide semiparametric identification of the quantile parameters without imposing parametric restrictions on the selection probability, derive the asymptotic distribution of the proposed estimator based on constrained selection probability weighting, and demonstrate how the approach applies to the Roy model of labor supply. Using German administrative data, we analyze the distribution of the gender gap in full-time earnings. We find pronounced positive selection among women at the lower end, especially those with less education, which widens the gender gap in this segment, and strong positive selection among highly educated men at the top, which narrows the gender wage gap at upper quantiles. Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336610 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336612 Title: A Horserace of Methods for Eliciting Induced Beliefs Online Authors: Banko-Ferran, Daniel; Burdea, Valeria; Woon, Jonathan Abstract: This study evaluates the effectiveness of three widely used belief elicitation methods in an online setting: the binarized scoring rule (BSR), the stochastic Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism (BDM), and unincentivized introspection. Despite the theoretical advantages of incentive-compatible methods (BSR and BDM), we find that they impose significantly higher cognitive costs on participants, requiring more time and effort to implement, without delivering clear improvements in belief accuracy. In fact, BSR systematically leads to greater errors in reported beliefs compared to introspection, while BDM also reduces accuracy, though to a lesser extent. Surprisingly, individual differences in probabilistic reasoning skills do not mitigate these errors for BSR but do help improve accuracy under BDM. Our findings suggest that simpler, unincentivized approaches may offer comparable or even superior accuracy at a lower cognitive cost. These results have broad implications for the design of experiments and the interpretation of belief data in behavioral and experimental economics. Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://hdl.handle.net/10419/336612 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z