Abstract
We investigate decision-making on behalf of others in a controlled laboratory experiment. Although this setting applies to decisions of parents, doctors, politicians – to name a few – here the design focuses in particular on climate change negotiations. Economists typically simplify decision-making into a single dimension using cost-benefit analyses. In this study, we compare decisions made for others across financial and physical domains, exploring whether monetization introduces biases or alters behavior. Additionally, we examine self-selection into decision-making roles, profiling those who choose to act on behalf of others relative to the general population. Our findings shed light on behavioral biases that influence collective decision-making.