Work in Progress
"“TRUE” labels on Fact-Checking Interventions Increase Sharing of Corrections on Vaccine Misinformation" (w/E. Calvo, N. Aruguete, F. Batista, T. Ventura) (Submitted)
Abstract: There is significant research that explains users’ decision to share misinformation online. However, we know less about the reasons that explain the decision to share fact-checks. We analyze the effect of confirmation and refutation frames on the decision to engage with fact-checks online. We randomly expose respondents to semantically equivalent content that is worded as a confirmation of accurate information (“It is TRUE that vaccines prevent against COVID-19”) or as a refutation of misinformation (“It is FALSE ...”). Respondents like, share, and reply confirmation frames at higher rates than refutation frames, even if the statements are semantically equivalent. These findings are important for designing policy interventions that optimize fact-checking exposure, either by increasing the amplification of the factually correct content or by reducing the salience of the issue when it is socially harmful. It is particularly relevant when addressing misinformation on topics such as health and toxic speech.
"Disaster and Political Trust: A Natural Experiment from the 2017 Mexico City Earthquake" (w/M. Frost, S. Kim, P. Zamora, and E. J. Zechmeister) (under submission)
Abstract: Political trust undergirds democratic legitimacy, representative government, and the provision of effective public policy. We argue that natural disasters can affect citizens' trust in government by undermining their confidence in the beneficence and competence of public servants. However, disaster relief could countervail these effects. We test the relationship among disaster, trust, and aid using novel data gathered immediately before and after a 7.1-magnitude earthquake struck Mexico City in September 2017. Our results demonstrate that the earthquake negatively affected several measures of political trust. Further, we find that disaster relief could offset this decrease in trust. The results add to the scholarship on the politics of disaster and are important for policy, shedding light on the potential for disaster assistance to restore political trust following a disaster.
"Trustful voters, trustworthy politicians: A Survey Experiment on the influence of Social Media in Politics" (w/N. Aruguete, E. Calvo, and T. Ventura) (under submission)
Abstract: The increase of uncivil dialogue, polarization, and the proliferation of fake news in social media raise questions about the relationship between online negative messages and the decline in political trust. We implement a Trust Game in a survey experiment with 4,800 respondents in Brazil and Mexico. Our design models the effect of social media on trust and trustworthiness. Survey respondents alternate as agents (politicians) and principals (voters), with rewards contingent on their preferred "candidate'' winning the election. We measure the extent to which voters deposit their trust in others and the extent to which they are trustworthy, honoring requests that run counter to their benefit. Results provide robust support for a negative effect of uncivil partisan discourse on trust behavior and null results on trustworthiness.
"Overconfidence and Gun Preferences. How Behavioral Biases Affect Your Safety" (w/F. Cafferata and P. Domínguez) (under submission)
Abstract: Overconfidence leads to risky behavior, including when people are around guns. Does overconfidence also shape attitudes about gun ownership and use? We evaluate this possibility by conducting nationally representative surveys in six countries in the Americas, including the United States. Results show that overconfident individuals are more willing to accept the use of guns and are more likely to say that they would be willing to use guns. These results show that overconfidence is a significant behavioral trait correlated with attitudes toward weapon handling, ownership, carrying, and use. As such, public policy decisions about guns may be affected by overconfidence.
"Can task compliance be increased in the public sector? Results from an experiment using behavioral insights" (w/P. Zamora) (under submission)
Abstract: Introducing financial incentives to increase productivity in the public sector tends to be politically and bureaucratically cumbersome, particularly in developing countries. Although there is scarce evidence on nudges' effectiveness, they could be a low-cost alternative, both politically and financially. We evaluate the effect of introducing a personalized and clear notice sent to civil servants who have to comply with citizens' requests in the context of the freedom of information act in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The redesigned notice attempts to exploit salience, personalization, social norms, and loss aversion to increase responses' timeliness. The results show that the behavioral intervention increased the share of requests answered exactly on the second deadline. We also exploit a civil service training program that took place while our behavioral intervention was occurring. Participation in the training sessions did not improve performance and it affected the effects of the behavioral intervention.%However, participation in training sessions increased the percentage of late responses. These results have ample consequences for policy design. First, they indicate that behavioral interventions could affect task compliance and productivity in the public sector. Second, they provide evidence that workshops may not always have the intended consequences. These results provide novel evidence to the literature on on-the-job incentives and training.
"Do Tax Amnesties Work? Results from a Field Experiment" (w/E. Castro) Download
Abstract: Limited attention affects our ability to make good choices, but governments can improve decision-making by providing simpler and more salient information. We evaluate the role of inattention in decision-making in the context of a field experiment implemented during a tax amnesty in the city of Santa Fe (Argentina). Tax amnesties are advertised to delinquent taxpayers through direct communication. In the intervention, we redesign the communication notices sent to the taxpayers to evaluate whether increasing salience and reducing cognitive costs increase the probability that taxpayers put attention to the message and understand better the benefits of tax amnesty. We randomize more than 54,000 taxpayers. A group of taxpayers receives the traditional messages. The treatment groups receive redesigned communications. Our results show that messages that reduce the cognitive costs increase the probability that taxpayers will enter the tax amnesty. The amount collected in the treatment groups is up to 8 percent higher than in the control group. We also exploit the exogenous variation in attention to evaluate the convenience of the tax amnesty program for the city given that some people may stop paying the regular bills (creates moral hazard). We find that while people are more willing to cancel their past debt, they are also more likely to reduce their compliance with the current tax bills. Moreover, there is a negative spillover effect in the compliant population (those who had no debts). When the tax amnesty becomes more noticeable, their incentive to comply falls substantially. Making public policy more salient, easier to understand, and less cognitive intensive facilitates decision-making. However, doing it during a tax amnesty may increase collection of past debt, but it could also generate negative incentives for tax compliance in the overall population.