Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Title: Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence
Authors: Cueva, Carlos | Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo | Mata Pérez, Esther | Ponti, Giovanni | Sartarelli, Marcello | Yu, Haihan | Zhukova, Vita
Research Group/s: Microeconomía Aplicada (GIMA) | Economía Laboral y Econometría (ELYE) | Desarrollo, Métodos Cuantitativos y Teoría Económica (DMCTE)
Center, Department or Service: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico
Keywords: Behavioral economics | Cognitive reflection | Gender effects | Experiments
Knowledge Area: Fundamentos del Análisis Económico
Issue Date: Oct-2016
Publisher: Elsevier
Citation: Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2016, 64: 81-93. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002
Abstract: We study how cognitive abilities correlate with behavioral choices by collecting evidence from almost 1200 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.
Sponsor: Financial support from the Spanish Ministries of Education and Science and Economics and Competitiveness (SEJ 2007-62656, ECO2011-29230, ECO2012-34928 and ECO2013-43119), Universidad de Alicante (GRE 13–04), MIUR (PRIN 20103S5RN3_002), Generalitat Valenciana (Research Projects Gruposo3/086 and PROMETEO/2013/037) and Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas (IVIE) is gratefully acknowledged.
ISSN: 2214-8043 (Print) | 2214-8051 (Online)
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002
Language: eng
Type: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights: © 2015 Elsevier Inc.
Peer Review: si
Publisher version:
Appears in Collections:INV - DMCTE - Artículos de Revistas
INV - GIMA - Artículos de Revistas
INV - ELYE - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Thumbnail2016_Cueva_etal_JBEE_final.pdfVersión final (acceso restringido)623,85 kBAdobe PDFOpen    Request a copy
Thumbnail2016_Cueva_etal_JBEE_preprint.pdfPreprint (acceso abierto)1,68 MBAdobe PDFOpen Preview

Items in RUA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.