Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10045/62513
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. |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10045/62513 |
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: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002 |
Appears in Collections: | INV - DMCTE - Artículos de Revistas INV - GIMA - Artículos de Revistas INV - ELYE - Artículos de Revistas |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2016_Cueva_etal_JBEE_final.pdf | Versión final (acceso restringido) | 623,85 kB | Adobe PDF | Open Request a copy |
2016_Cueva_etal_JBEE_preprint.pdf | Preprint (acceso abierto) | 1,68 MB | Adobe PDF | Open Preview |
Items in RUA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.