IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/prbchp/978-3-319-99187-0_22.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Cognitive Reflection Test in Predicting Rational Behavior in the Dictator Game

In: Problems, Methods and Tools in Experimental and Behavioral Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Monika Czerwonka

    (Warsaw School of Economics)

  • Aleksandra Staniszewska

    (Warsaw School of Economics)

  • Krzysztof Kompa

    (Warsaw University of Life Sciences)

Abstract

Altruism and behavioral impact on economic decisions became the center of the interest for experimental and behavioral economy. The literature widely reports the results of variety types of dictator games (DG) and cognitive reflection tests (CRT). There is a broad research on donated sum, anonymity of the receiver and dictators’ position (giving vs. taking) in dictator games. Separately research on the CRT evolves from 3 questions to 7 questions variant. However, there is an evident gap in the literature for data that combines these two tools (DG and CRT) in one setup. In this study, we extend existing research on the relationship between cognitive performance on the CRT and dictator decisions taking into account such factors as donated sum, anonymity of the receiver and dictators’ position (giving vs. taking). The main goal is to find out if the cognitive reflection test (CRT) helps to predict rational (or selfish) behavior in a DG. In our investigation, we asked 511 participants to respond to 6 types of dictator games and CRT test. For statistical analysis of the received results, we applied correlation, descriptive statistics, the t-student test and the Mann–Whitney test. Our results show that cognitive reflection was positively correlated with rational (selfish) behavior in DGs. Those dictators who scored high on the CRT (reflective dictators) kept more money for themselves than those who achieved lower scores on the CRT (altruistic, impulsive dictators). Our results confirm an inequity aversion attitude among altruistic, impulsive dictators and selfish, reflective dictators.

Suggested Citation

  • Monika Czerwonka & Aleksandra Staniszewska & Krzysztof Kompa, 2018. "Cognitive Reflection Test in Predicting Rational Behavior in the Dictator Game," Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in: Kesra Nermend & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska (ed.), Problems, Methods and Tools in Experimental and Behavioral Economics, chapter 0, pages 301-312, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:prbchp:978-3-319-99187-0_22
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-99187-0_22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aleksandra Staniszewska & Monika Czerwonka & Krzysztof Kompa, 2020. "Rational Behavior of Dictators - Evidence on Gender and Religiosity," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 26(3), pages 289-301, August.
    2. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2023. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-Making," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cognitive reflection test; Dictator game; Rationality; Economic decision-making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D30 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:spr:prbchp:978-3-319-99187-0_22. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.