Arroyos-Calvera, D., & Powdthavee, N. (2026) Good reputation as insurance: how reputation moderates fairness perceptions in the market. Review of Behavioral Economics, 1-31.
Arroyos-Calvera, D., McDonald, R., Read, D., and Rigal, B. (2026) What do information choices tell us about generosity? Preference revelation vs. construction, self- and social image. In Bucciol, A., and Quercia, S., (ed.) Research Handbook on Unethical Behaviour. --- earlier draft here.
Arroyos-Calvera, D., Isoni, A., Loomes, G., & McDonald, R. (2024). Does the Allais Paradox survive with non-monetary consequences? Economic Letters, 112034.
Arroyos-Calvera, D., Lohse, J., & McDonald, R., (2024) Beyond social influence: examining the efficacy of non-social recommendations. European Economic Review, 104801.
Arroyos-Calvera, D., Drouvelis, M., Lohse, J., & McDonald, R. (2023). Improving compliance with COVID-19 guidance: A workplace field experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-23. doi:10.1017/bpp.2023.31
Arroyos-Calvera, D., Covey, J., & McDonald, R. (2023). Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Social Science & Medicine, 324, 115855.
Arroyos-Calvera, D., Covey, J., Loomes, G., & McDonald, R. (2019). The Equity-Efficiency Trade-off, Self-Interest, and Moral Principles in Health and Safety Valuation. Social Science & Medicine, 238, 112477.
The Limits of Moral Wiggle Room: Risk and Plausible Deniability in Public Good Games (with Andis Sofianos)
Although in the lab we often assume a deterministic relationship between contributions to public goods and their returns, in real life this relationship is often uncertain: consider corruption or inefficiencies in governments, or areas where our knowledge is limited such as climate change mitigation. Rational individuals may change their contributions to respond to this uncertainty, but we may also observe a reduction in contributions if people take advantage of the plausible deniability about one's actions that this uncertainty creates. The reduction of prosocial behaviour in the presence of plausible deniability was documented in Dana et al (2007) and has since been widely replicated in two-person non-strategic settings. We test whether people exploit uncertainty in public good games (PGG) by using it as an excuse to free-ride. In two online studies that entail 5 between-subjects treatments, we varied whether the marginal per capita returns (MPCR) were certain or uncertain, and whether this uncertainty could give participants plausible deniability for their low or zero contributions. We found no change in free-riding or average contributions across treatments, suggesting that cooperation under uncertainty is accurately captured by the standard PGGs with certain MPCR, and that uncertainty need not hamper cooperation in social dilemmas.
Safety prioritisation beyond efficiency: the role of age, health status and ingroup preferences (with Judith Covey and Rebecca McDonald)
A key challenge for policymakers is allocating limited resources to improve safety. One approach is to compare the cost-per-life-saved against a metric such as the Value of Statistical Life (VSL), an approach that prioritizes efficiency – i.e., the number of lives saved. But public preferences may reflect concerns beyond efficiency. In two experiments, we examine how people trade efficiency against distributive principles (equity in distribution and saving those most at risk), and beneficiary characteristics (age and health status). Self-interest was also considered by randomly assigning respondents to adopt either an impartial or socially inclusive personal perspective. Across both experiments, efficiency was the dominant concern, with equity and self-interest also valued. In the experiment focused on age (N = 314), saving younger lives received greater weight than saving older lives, but the effect was small and heterogeneous. It was driven primarily by younger respondents - older respondents showed no comparable prioritization. In contrast, the experiment focused on health (N = 316) revealed no aggregate preference for prioritizing people in good health over those in poor health. Asymmetric ingroup preferences among respondents in good or poor health offset one another. Self-interest framing did not amplify ingroup preferences. Overall, the findings indicate limited consensus for adjusting VSLs based on age or health status. Some age-related weighting emerges without cross-group agreement, and there is no overall support for health-based adjustment. Recognizing how ingroup preferences shape public views is important for informing safety policy.
The economic value of taking 10,000 steps a day: a systematic review (with Mark Elliott and Sophie Richardson)
Physical inactivity is a major global public health challenge, driving substantial preventable illness, premature death, and economic costs. This paper estimates the economic value of an "active day" (defined as 10,000 steps) using existing academic literature on adult populations. We conducted structured database searches to identify studies quantifying the health and economic consequences of physical activity, drawing on three strands: (i) population attributable fraction (PAF) analyses of avoided healthcare costs; (ii) lifetime cost-effectiveness models reporting QALYs, DALYs, or cost savings; and (iii) workplace studies linking activity to reduced absenteeism. Activity measures were standardised into MET units and converted into equivalent 10,000-step days. Based on 24 estimates from 19 studies across 11 countries, the PAF-based approach yields a mean value of US$2.34 (2024 prices), with notable variation. Cost-effectiveness modelling ranges from US$0.01–0.51 (healthcare costs only) to US$6–28 (QALY-based). Workplace estimates suggest US$1–8 per active day. Our results demonstrate that an active day generates non trivial economic value, but that estimates vary markedly depending on methodology, context, and which dimensions of benefit are captured. This paper provides a proof of concept framework for translating heterogeneous physical activity evidence into a common, policy relevant metric.
Information and charitable donations (with Johannes Lohse and Kim Scharf)
Competition and Empathy (with Loukas Balafoutas and Christiane Schwieren)
Time and the Value of a Life Year (with Susan Chilton, Hugh Metcalfe, Rebecca McDonald and Jytte Nielsen)
The value of taking 10,000 steps a day: a systematic review (with Mark Elliott and Sophie Richardson)
Preferences over conditional risk sequences: an experimental investigation (with Rebecca McDonald and Tyson Hayes)
Arroyos-Calvera, D. (2017, September). What do DALYs capture? Available on http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1f2/what_do_dalys_capture/