IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v72y2018icp121-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the role of deliberation time in non-selfish behavior: The double response method

Author

Listed:
  • Krawczyk, Michał
  • Sylwestrzak, Marta

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the Double Response research method, in which, in each decision task, subjects supply one quick choice and one additional choice after a longer deliberation time. Assuming a simple dual-process framework, with the two modes of judgment running parallel to each other providing the decision-maker with their final estimates of the utility difference between the options, this method incentivizes the decision-maker to indicate which option they prefer in System 1 and which option is preferred in System 2. We apply the method to a series of simple decision tasks aimed at eliciting subjects’ social preferences (as in Charness and Rabin, 2002). We observe that time pressure leads to a negative attitude towards the earnings of other participants when they are higher than those of the decision-maker. In other words, deliberation decisions are typically updated towards those corresponding with lower aversion to disadvantageous inequality (“envy”).

Suggested Citation

  • Krawczyk, Michał & Sylwestrzak, Marta, 2018. "Exploring the role of deliberation time in non-selfish behavior: The double response method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 121-134.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:121-134
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804317301532
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Recalde, M.P. & Riedl, A.M. & Vesterlund, L., 2014. "Error prone inference from respons time: The case of intuitive generosity," Research Memorandum 034, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Timothy N. Cason & Daniel Friedman & ED Hopkins, 2014. "Cycles and Instability in a Rock--Paper--Scissors Population Game: A Continuous Time Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 112-136.
    3. Marina Agranov & Andrew Caplin & Chloe Tergiman, 2015. "Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 146-157, December.
    4. Piovesan, Marco & Wengström, Erik, 2009. "Fast or fair? A study of response times," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 193-196, November.
    5. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    6. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis M. Miller, 2008. "Instinctive Response in the Ultimatum Game," ThE Papers 08/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    8. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "A model of procedural and distributive fairness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 111-128, January.
    9. Grimm, Veronika & Mengel, Friederike, 2011. "Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 113-115, May.
    10. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    11. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    12. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Gianna Lotito & Matteo Migheli & Guido Ortona, 2013. "Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 123-133, July.
    15. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    16. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    17. Ortmann, Andreas, 2008. "Prospecting Neuroeconomics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 431-448, November.
    18. Ian Krajbich & Bastiaan Oud & Ernst Fehr, 2014. "Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 501-506, May.
    19. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine, 2003. "Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 341-347, December.
    20. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    21. Neo, Wei Siong & Yu, Michael & Weber, Roberto A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2013. "The effects of time delay in reciprocity games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 20-35.
    22. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.
    23. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    25. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    26. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2019. "File sharing as conditional cooperation: evidence from a framed field experiment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 91-96, January.
    2. Katarzyna Gawryluk & Michal Krawczyk, 2019. "Additional deliberation reduces pessimism: evidence from the double-response method," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 51-64, August.
    3. Katarzyna Gawryluk & Michal Krawczyk, 2017. "Probability weighting under time pressure: applying the double-response method," Working Papers 2017-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. 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.

    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. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    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. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "Cooperation in Public Good Games. Calculated or Confused?," Working Papers 0626, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
    5. Alexander W. Cappelen & Ulrik H. Nielsen & Bertil Tungodden & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Fairness is intuitive," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 727-740, December.
    6. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    7. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    8. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    9. Merkel, Anna & Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for the role of subjective utility differences under time pressure," Working Papers 0627, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Leonidas Spiliopoulos & Andreas Ortmann, 2018. "The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 383-433, June.
    11. Chisadza, Carolyn & Nicholls, Nicky & Yitbarek, Eleni, 2021. "Group identity in fairness decisions: Discrimination or inequality aversion?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2018. "From spontaneous cooperation to spontaneous punishment – Distinguishing the underlying motives driving spontaneous behavior in first and second order public good games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 59-72.
    13. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2015. "Cognitive Processes of Distributional Preferences: A Response Time Study," TWI Research Paper Series 101, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    14. 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.
    15. Johannes Lohse & Timo Goeschl & Johannes H. Diederich, 2017. "Giving is a Question of Time: Response Times and Contributions to an Environmental Public Good," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 455-477, July.
    16. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game: Are there brains in games?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    17. Artavia-Mora, Luis & Bedi, Arjun S. & Rieger, Matthias, 2017. "Intuitive help and punishment in the field," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 133-145.
    18. Hubert Janos Kiss & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia, 2019. "Does response time predict withdrawal decisions? Lessons from a bank-run experiment," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(3), pages 200-222, November.
    19. Jarke, Johannes & Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "I'm in a hurry, I don't want to know! The effects of time pressure and transparency on self-serving behavior," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 32, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    20. Eamonn Ferguson & John Maltby & Peter A Bibby & Claire Lawrence, 2014. "Fast to Forgive, Slow to Retaliate: Intuitive Responses in the Ultimatum Game Depend on the Degree of Unfairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Response time; Design of laboratory experiments; Other-regarding preference; Inequality aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:121-134. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.