Social preferences and cognitive reflection: evidence from a dictator game experiment

Ponti, Giovanni; Rodríguez-Lara, Ismael

doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00146

Cited by 39 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…23 As for social preferences, impulsive subjects are more envious and guilty than reflective ones, and impulsive males are more guilty than the residual group, while females are not. This evidence complements the findings in Ponti and Rodriguez-Lara (2014) who employ the Dictator Game data of Project 2 and find that, once again, impulsive subjects are those whose behavior markedly differs from that of the other two groups (again, in the direction of inequity aversion).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Cueva

Iturbe-Ormaetxe

Mata-Pérez

et al. 2016

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study how cognitive abilities correlate with behavioral choices by collecting evidence from almost 1, 200 subjects across eight experimental projects concerning a wide variety of tasks, including some classic risk and social preference elicitation protocols. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) has been administered to all our experimental subjects, which makes our dataset one of the largest in the literature. We partition our subject pool into three groups depending on their CRT performance. Reflective subjects are those answering at least two of the three CRT questions correctly. Impulsive subjects are those who are unable to suppress the instinctive impulse to follow the intuitive -although incorrect-answer in at least two 2 questions. The remaining subjects form a residual group. We find that females score significantly less than males in the CRT and that, in their wrong answers, impulsive ones are observed more frequently. The 2D-4D ratio, which is higher for females, is correlated negatively with subjects' CRT score. We also find that differences in risk attitudes across CRT groups crucially depend on the elicitation task. Finally, impulsive subjects have higher social (inequity-averse) concerns, while reflective subjects are more likely to satisfy basic consistency requirements in lottery choices. JEL Classification: C91, D81, J16

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In a companion paper, Ponti and Rodriguez-Lara (2014) use data from Project 19 The sign and significance of social preferences estimated parameters and their differences by CRT groups in Table 5 are unchanged if the female dummy is added as independent variable, as shown in Table C3 in the Appendix.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Cueva

Iturbe-Ormaetxe

Mata-Pérez

et al. 2016

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…egalitarian choices) or maximize their own pay-off relative to their counterparts (i.e. spiteful choices); by contrast, a more deliberative cognitive style is related to choices that increase the counterparts' pay-offs at a very low cost for the decision–maker, thus promoting social efficiency [12,29]. The reported effects have been shown to be robust to controlling for cognitive confounding factors such as general intelligence [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: evidence from USA and India

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups make decisions on both the production and the distribution of resources. These decisions typically involve a tension between increasing the total level of group resources (i.e. social efficiency) and distributing these resources among group members (i.e. individuals' relative shares). This is the case because the redistribution process may destroy part of the resources, thus resulting in socially inefficient allocations. Here we apply a dual-process approach to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this fundamental tension. We conducted a set of experiments to examine the extent to which different allocation decisions respond to intuition or deliberation. In a newly developed approach, we assess intuition and deliberation at both the trait level (using the Cognitive Reflection Test, henceforth CRT) and the state level (through the experimental manipulation of response times). To test for robustness, experiments were conducted in two countries: the USA and India. Despite absolute-level differences across countries, in both locations we show that: (i) time pressure and low CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for their relative shares and (ii) time delay and high CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for social efficiency. These findings demonstrate that deliberation favours social efficiency by overriding individuals' intuitive tendency to focus on relative shares.

show abstract

“…egalitarian choices) or maximize their own payoff relative to their counterparts (i.e. spiteful choices); by contrast, a more deliberative cognitive style is related to choices that increase the counterparts' payoffs at a very low cost for the decision maker thus promoting social efficiency (12,29). The reported effects have been shown to be robust to controlling for cognitive confounding factors such general intelligence (12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%