Does the animosity toward a holder of an opposite political opinion or the behavior toward someone whose opinion on a divisive issue is unknown depends on whether that opinion was disclosed or withheld voluntarily? In order to study this question, we conducted a pre-registered study in Russia, measuring the pro-war dictators’ behavior towards their partners with aligned or conflicting views on the war in Ukraine using give-or-take modification of Dictator Game. In the presence of a large polarisation gap (outgroup discrimination), we did not find that intentional vs. unintentional disclosure of the recipients’ positions affected the transfers of the dictators; at the same time, dictators’ beliefs about the share of war supporters among experiment participants and the donations made by other dictators were causally affected. Our study is the first one to consider this dimension of social interactions, and contributes to the quickly growing literature on political polarisation.
We run a randomized online experiment to study the impact of trading platform gamification on retail traders’ risk taking. We recruit 605 participants from four countries, two-thirds of them reporting self-directed trading experience, to trade a virtual asset on an experimental platform. The gamified version of the platform features elements such as achievement badges or encouragement messages. We find that gamification "nudges" participants to take on more risk, particularly when trading high-volatility assets. The effect is stronger for inexperienced traders with lower financial literacy. A one standard deviation increase in the financial literacy score reduces the impact of gamification by 56%.