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.

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence / Cueva, Carlos; Iturbe Ormaetxe, Iã±igo; Mata Pérez, Esther; Ponti, Giovanni; Sartarelli, Marcello; Yu, Haihan; Zhukova, Vita. - In: JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS. - ISSN 2214-8043. - 64:(2016), pp. 81-93. [10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002]

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

PONTI, GIOVANNI;
2016

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.
Behavioral economics; Cognitive reflection; Experiments; Gender effects; Applied Psychology; Social Sciences (all); Economics and Econometrics
Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence / Cueva, Carlos; Iturbe Ormaetxe, Iã±igo; Mata Pérez, Esther; Ponti, Giovanni; Sartarelli, Marcello; Yu, Haihan; Zhukova, Vita. - In: JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS. - ISSN 2214-8043. - 64:(2016), pp. 81-93. [10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.002]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
CRT_Published_Paper.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Articolo pubblicato in rivista
Tipologia: Versione dell'editore
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 782.51 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
782.51 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11385/175566
Citazioni
  • Scopus 44
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 43
social impact