<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Heijden, E.C.M. van der</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/7790/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Technology adoption subsidies: An experiment with managers (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/15020/</link>
      <pubDate>2009-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We evaluate the impact of technology adoption subsidies on investment behavior in an individual choice experiment. In a laboratory setting professional managers are confronted with an intertemporal decision problem in which they have to decide whether or not to search for, and possibly adopt, a new technology. Technologies differ in the per-period benefits they yield, and their purchase price increases with the per-period benefits provided. We introduce a subsidy on the more expensive technologies (that also yield larger per-period benefits), and find that the subsidy scheme induces agents to search for and adopt these more expensive technologies even though the subsidy itself is too small to render these technologies profitable. We speculate that the result is driven by the positive connotation (affect) that the concept 'subsidy' invokes.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Technology Adoption Subsidies: An Experiment with Managers (Research Paper)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10750/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-10-25T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We evaluate the impact of technology adoption subsidies on in- vestment behavior in an individual choice experiment. In a laboratory setting professional managers are confronted with an intertemporal decision problem in which they have to decide whether or not to search for, and possibly adopt, a new technology. Technologies differ in the per-period benefits they yield, and their purchase price increases with the per-period benefits provided. We introduce a subsidy on the more expensive technologies (that also yield the larger per-period benefits), and find that the subsidy scheme induces agents to search for and adopt these more expensive technologies even though the subsidy itself is too small to render these technologies profitable. We speculate that the result is driven by the positive connotation (affect) that the concept 'subsidy' invokes.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Should the Same Side of the Market always move first in a Transaction? An Experimental Study (Research Paper)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/6842/</link>
      <pubDate>2001-10-03T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>This paper investigates whether transactions where the buyer (or the seller) always moves first, and the seller (or the buyer) always moves second in the exchange gives higher payoffs than exchanges in which it is randomly determined who moves first. We examine the effect of two treatment variables: Partners versus Strangers and fixed versus changing positions. We find that both with fixed and with changing positions, second movers take advantage of their position by exploiting the first mover by "not delivering" the demanded good. However, with fixed positions exploitation occurs significantly less while reciprocal exchanges happen more often. In spite of this, it turns out that with fixed positions payoffs are very unevenly distributed. Unequal payoff distributions occur both under Partners and Strangers, but they appear to be more extreme among Strangers.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Simple and Complex Gift Exchange in the Laboratory (Research Paper)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/6844/</link>
      <pubDate>2001-10-03T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We examine an experimental gift exchange game in which the players can improve upon the unique no-gifts equilibrium through cooperative gift giving. The main feature of the study is that there are two different types of gift exchange, which we call simple and complex exchange, respectively. Complex exchange gives higher payoffs than simple exchange but it requires not only mutual trust, like simple exchange, but also a substantial degree of coordination. We examine whether players are able to conclude simple and complex exchanges and how this is affected by the move and matching structure of the game.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>