IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/17-09.html

A Flexible and Customizable Method for Assessing Cognitive Abilities

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Civelli

    (University of Arkansas)

  • Cary Deck

    (University of Arkansas and Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

Abstract

Raven’s Progressive Matrices are a broadly used tool for measuring cognitive ability. This paper develops and validates a set of nonverbal puzzles that can be viewed as an extension of or substitute for the well-known Ravens tasks. Specifically, we describe the characteristics of our puzzles and provide a calibration of the matrices in terms of response accuracy and response time as a function of these characteristics. Then we directly compare within-subject performance on our puzzles and Ravens tasks. Finally, we replicate a previous experimental paper, substituting our puzzles for the Ravens matrices, and show the two tools have similar predictive success. Our approach offers several benefits due to the relatively large number of novel puzzles of a given difficulty level that can be generated.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Civelli & Cary Deck, 2017. "A Flexible and Customizable Method for Assessing Cognitive Abilities," Working Papers 17-09, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:17-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.chapman.edu/research/institutes-and-centers/economic-science-institute/_files/WorkingPapers/civelli-deck-2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Jones, Garett & Weel, Jaap, 2016. "Average player traits as predictors of cooperation in a repeated prisoner's dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 50-60.
    2. Benito-Ostolaza, Juan M. & Hernández, Penélope & Sanchis-Llopis, Juan A., 2016. "Do individuals with higher cognitive ability play more strategically?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 5-11.
    3. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Graham, Michael & Wolf, Jesse, 2013. "Cognitive ability and strategic sophistication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 115-130.
    4. Cueva, Carlos & Rustichini, Aldo, 2015. "Is financial instability male-driven? Gender and cognitive skills in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 330-344.
    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. Ji Yong Lee & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Cary Deck & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2020. "Cognitive Ability and Bidding Behavior in Second Price Auctions: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1494-1510, October.
    2. Deck, Cary & Pate, Jennifer, 2022. "High time to study the relationship between marijuana use and economic behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Brice Corgnet & Cary Deck & Mark DeSantis & David Porter, 2022. "Forecasting Skills in Experimental Markets: Illusion or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5216-5232, July.
    4. Andrea Civelli & Cary Deck & Justin D. LeBlanc & Antonella Tutino, 2018. "Rationally Inattentive Consumer: An Experiment," Working Papers 1813, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    5. Christoph Drobner, 2020. "Motivated Beliefs and Anticipation of Uncertainty Resolution," Munich Papers in Political Economy 07, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    6. Heinke, Steve & Olschewski, Sebastian & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2022. "Experiences and Asset Price Dynamics," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264017, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    8. Heinke, Steve & Olschewski, Sebastian & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2024. "Experiences, demand for risky investments, and implications for price dynamics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    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. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive abilities and economic behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-4.
    2. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    3. Juan M. Benito-Ostolaza & Penélope Hernández & Juan A. Sanchis-Llopis, 2015. "Are individuals with higher cognitive ability expected to play more strategically?," Working Papers 1507, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    4. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Eizo Akiyama & Yukihiko Funaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "Diversity in Cognitive Ability Enlarges Mispricing in Experimental Asset Markets," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-08, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "Smart or selfish – When smart guys finish nice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 28-40.
    7. Etienne Dagorn & David Masclet & Thierry Penard, 2022. "The Behavioral Determinants of School Achievement: A Lab in the Field Experiment in Middle School," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2022-05, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    8. Tetsuya Kawamura & Tiffany Tsz Kwan Tse, 2022. "Intelligence promotes cooperation in long-term interaction: experimental evidence in infinitely repeated public goods games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 17(4), pages 927-946, October.
    9. Flannery, Timothy & Sibert, Cara Elisabeth, 2019. "Learning from Forced Completion vs the Option to Opt Out: An Experiment on a Hybrid of the Game of 21 and the Centipede Game," OSF Preprints vfuqw, Center for Open Science.
    10. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2022. "Measuring tree complexity with response times," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    11. Maran, Thomas & Ravet-Brown, Theo & Angerer, Martin & Furtner, Marco & Huber, Stefan E., 2020. "Intelligence predicts choice in decision-making strategies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Butler, David & Cheung, Stephen L., 2018. "Mind, Body, Bubble! Psychological and Biophysical Dimensions of Behavior in Experimental Asset Markets," IZA Discussion Papers 11563, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. Marquardt, Philipp & Noussair, Charles N & Weber, Martin, 2019. "Rational expectations in an experimental asset market with shocks to market trends," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 116-140.
    14. Etienne Dagorn & David Masclet & Thierry Penard, 2026. "Altruism, cooperativeness and academic achievement: a lab in the field experiment in French middle schools," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 1-28, January.
    15. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2020. "Property is Dummy Proof: An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2020_02, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    16. Cooper, Kristen & Schneider, Henry & Waldman, Michael, 2021. "Limited rationality and the strategic environment: Further evidence from a pricing game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Eizo Akiyama & Yukihiko Funaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2015. "Diversity in Cognitive Ability Enlarges Mispricing," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-29, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    18. Timothy Flannery & Cara Sibert, 2022. "Learning from Forced Completion vs. the Option to Opt Out," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1), pages 65-102, April.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:vfuqw_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    21. Douglas Davis & Asen Ivanov & Oleg Korenok, 2016. "Individual characteristics and behavior in repeated games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 67-99, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:chu:wpaper:17-09. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.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.