Paternalism and Deliberation: An Experiment on Making Formal Rules
Max R. P. Grossmann

TL;DR
This study investigates how mandatory waiting periods and risk caps interact in high-stakes decisions, revealing that deliberation and restrictions are often complementary rather than substitutes, affecting decision autonomy and risk behavior.
Contribution
The paper provides experimental evidence on the relationship between soft and hard paternalism, showing their complementary roles in influencing decision-making and risk-taking.
Findings
Exogenous deliberation has no effect on risk caps.
Waiting periods act as add-on restrictions, not substitutes for caps.
Time and restrictions influence risk behavior and decision autonomy.
Abstract
This paper studies the relationship between soft and hard paternalism by examining two kinds of restriction: a waiting period and a hard limit (cap) on risk-seeking behavior. Mandatory waiting periods have been instituted for medical procedures, gun purchases and other high-stakes decisions. Are these policies substitutes for hard restrictions, and are delayed decisions more respected? In an experiment, decision-makers are informed about an impending high-stakes decision. Treatments define when the decision is made: on the spot or after one day, and whether the initial decision can be revised. In a general population survey experiment, another class of subjects (Choice Architects) is granted the opportunity to make rules for decision-makers. Given a decision's temporal structure, Choice Architects can decide on a cap to the decision-maker's risk taking. In another treatment, Choice…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPolitical Philosophy and Ethics · Law in Society and Culture
