[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcdx/2016-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deliberation favors social efficiency by helping people disregard their relative shares: Evidence from US and India

Author

Listed:
  • Valerio Capraro

    (Department of Economics, Middlesex University Business School)

  • Brice Corgnet

    (Economic Science Institute, Argyros School of Business and Economics)

  • Antonio M. Espin

    (Department of Economics, Middlesex University Business School)

  • Roberto Hernan-Gonzalez

    (Business School, University of Nottingham)

Abstract
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 dualprocess 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 US and India. Despite aggregate differences across countries, in both locations and at both levels of analysis, we show that: (i) time pressure and low CRT scores are associated with individuals’ concerns for their relative shares; (ii) time delay and high CRT scores are associated with individuals’ concerns for social efficiency. These findings demonstrate that deliberation favors social efficiency by overriding individuals’ intuitive tendency to focus on relative shares.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerio Capraro & Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernan-Gonzalez, 2016. "Deliberation favors social efficiency by helping people disregard their relative shares: Evidence from US and India," Discussion Papers 2016-06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2016-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/papers/cedex-discussion-paper-2016-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio M. Espín & Filippos Exadaktylos & Benedikt Herrmann & Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2013. "Short- and Long-run Goals in Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers 13-17, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3d04q5sm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2006. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 615-691, Elsevier.
    5. Pablo Branas-Garza & Antonio M. Espin & Benedikt Herrmann, 2014. "Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game," SEET Working Papers 2014-02, BELIS, Istanbul Bilgi University.
    6. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2001. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qz9k8vg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    7. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valerio Capraro & Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-Gonzalez, 2017. "Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: Evidence from US and India," Post-Print halshs-01439121, HAL.
    2. Amador, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Hernández, Ana, 2019. "Consistent and inconsistent choices under uncertainty: The role of cognitive abilities," MPRA Paper 95178, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Antonio Cabrales & Antonio M. Espín & Praveen Kujal & Stephen Rassenti, 2017. "Humans’ (incorrect) distrust of reflective decisions," Working Papers 17-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Rassenti, Stephen & Espin, Antonio M. & Kujal, Praveen, 2017. "Humans’ (incorrect) distrust of reflective decisions," CEPR Discussion Papers 11949, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    6. Hanna Fromell & Daniele Nosenzo & Trudy Owens, 2020. "Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 979-1001, December.
    7. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2018. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) predicts pro-social behavior in economic games only for unsatisfied individuals," MPRA Paper 86166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Mark Schneider, 2018. "Modeling Interactions between Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Working Papers 18-19, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio M. Espin & Angel Sanchez & Benedikt Herrmann, 2017. "Economic preferences 2.0: Connecting competition, cooperation and inter-temporal preferences," Discussion Papers 2017-04, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    2. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espín & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Working Papers 15-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    3. Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Thomas Riechmann & Joachim Weimann, 2017. "The dynamics of behavior in modified dictator games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Antonio M. Espín & Dolores Moreno-Herrero & José Sánchez-Campillo & José A. Rodríguez Martín, 2018. "Do Envy and Compassion Pave the Way to Unhappiness? Social Preferences and Life Satisfaction in a Spanish City," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 443-469, February.
    5. Gago, Andrés, 2021. "Reciprocity and uncertainty: When do people forgive?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    7. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    8. Christoph Engel & Paul A. M. Van Lange, 2021. "Social mindfulness is normative when costs are low, but rapidly declines with increases in costs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 290-322, March.
    9. Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco & Reuben, Ernesto & van Winden, Frans, 2017. "Decisiveness, peace, and inequality in games of conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 216-229.
    10. Billur Aksoy & Silvana Krasteva, 2020. "When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1148-1177, December.
    11. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Munkhammar, Sara, 2012. "Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 117-130.
    12. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    13. Santiago Burone & Martin Leites, 2021. "Self-centered and non-self-centered inequality aversion matter: Evidence from Uruguay based on an experimental survey," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 265-291, June.
    14. Paetzel, Fabian & Traub, Stefan, 2017. "Skewness-adjusted social preferences: Experimental evidence on the relation between inequality, elite behavior, and economic efficiency," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 130-139.
    15. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Diaz, Lina & Houser, Daniel & Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2023. "Estimating social preferences using stated satisfaction: Novel support for inequity aversion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    17. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:290-322 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Stein T Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2021. "Preferences, trust, and performance in youth business groups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Angela Sutan & Radu Vranceanu, 2019. "Managerial Behavior in the Lab: Information Disclosure, Decision Process and Leadership Style," Working Papers hal-02291210, HAL.
    21. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    efficiency; equality; dual process models; intuition; deliberation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2016-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jose V Guinot Saporta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.