Felix Chopra

Welcome! I am a PhD Candidate in Economics at the Bonn Graduate School of Economics at University of Bonn. My advisors are Armin Falk, Lorenz Goette and Florian Zimmermann. My main research fields are Applied Microeconomics and Behavioral Economics.

I am currently on the 2021-22 job market and available for interviews, including at the EEA 2021 and ASSA 2022 Annual Meetings.

Here is my CV.

Contact information

Email: felix.chopra@uni-bonn.de
Mobile: +49 (177) 480 1616
Office: Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Job Market Paper

The Joneses are Broke: Media, Narratives and Consumption | single-authored

[Pre-registration] [preliminary draft available upon request]

Working Papers

Do People Demand Fact-Checked News? Evidence from U.S. Democrats | with Ingar Haaland and Christopher Roth | Conditionally accepted, Journal of Public Economics

[CESifo Working Paper No. 9061]

Abstract: In a large-scale online experiment with U.S. Democrats, we examine how the demand for a newsletter about an economic relief plan changes when the newsletter content is fact-checked. We first document an overall muted demand for fact-checking when the newsletter features stories from an ideologically aligned source, even though fact-checking increases the perceived accuracy of the newsletter. The average impact of fact-checking masks substantial heterogeneity by ideology: fact-checking reduces demand among Democrats with strong ideological views and increases demand among ideologically moderate Democrats. Furthermore, fact-checking increases demand among all Democrats when the newsletter features stories from an ideologically non-aligned source.

Fighting Climate Change: The Role of Norms, Preferences, and Moral Values | with Peter Andre, Teodora Boneva and Armin Falk

[Pre-registration] [CESifo Working Paper No. 9175] [Media Coverage: Ökonomenstimme (German), briq news room (German)]

Abstract: We document individual willingness to fight climate change and its behavioral determinants in a large representative sample of US adults. Willingness to fight climate change - as measured through an incentivized donation decision - is highly heterogeneous across the population. Individual beliefs about social norms, economic preferences such as patience and altruism, as well as universal moral values positively predict climate preferences. Moreover, we document systematic misperceptions of prevalent social norms. Respondents vastly underestimate the prevalence of climate-friendly behaviors and norms among their fellow citizens. Providing respondents with correct information causally raises individual willingness to fight climate change as well as individual support for climate policies. The effects are strongest for individuals who are skeptical about the existence and threat of global warming.

Do People Value More Informative News? | with Ingar Haaland and Christopher Roth

[CESifo Working Paper No. 8026]

Abstract: Drawing on representative samples of the U.S. population with almost 12,000 respondents in total, we measure and experimentally vary people's beliefs about the informativeness of news articles. Inconsistent with the desire for more information being the dominant motive for people's news consumption, treated respondents who think that a newspaper is less likely to suppress information reduce their demand for news from this outlet. This finding suggests that people have other motives to read news that sometimes conflict with their desire for more information. We discuss the implications of our findings for the regulation of media markets.

Intertemporal Altruism | with Philipp Eisenhauer, Armin Falk, and Thomas Graeber

[IZA DP No. 14059]

Abstract: Most prosocial decisions involve intertemporal tradeoffs. Yet, the timing of prosocial utility flows is ambiguous and has largely disregarded in models of other-regarding preferences. We study the behavioral implications of the time structure of prosocial utility, leveraging a conceptual distinction between consequence-dated and choice-dated utility flows. We conduct a high-stakes donation experiment that comprehensively characterizes discounting behavior in self-other tradeoffs and allows us to identify different prosocial motives from their distinct time profiles. Our data can only be explained by a combination of choice- and consequence-dated prosocial utility. Both motives are pervasive and negatively correlated at the individual level.