IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp11326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive Skills and the Development of Strategic Sophistication

Author

Listed:
  • Fe, Eduardo

    (University of Strathclyde)

  • Gill, David

    (Purdue University)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate how observable cognitive skills influence the development of strategic sophistication. To answer this question, we study experimentally how psychometric measures of theory-of-mind and cognitive ability (or 'fluid intelligence') work together with age to determine the strategic ability and level-k behavior of children in a variety of incentivized strategic interactions. We find that better theory-of-mind and cognitive ability predict strategic sophistication in competitive games. Furthermore, age and cognitive ability act in tandem as complements, while age and theory-of-mind operate independently. Older children respond to information about the cognitive ability of their opponent, which provides support for the emergence of a sophisticated strategic theory-of-mind. Finally, theory-of-mind and age strongly predict whether children respond to intentions in a gift-exchange game, while cognitive ability has no influence, suggesting that different psychometric measures of cognitive skill correspond to different cognitive processes in strategic situations that involve the understanding of intentions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fe, Eduardo & Gill, David, 2018. "Cognitive Skills and the Development of Strategic Sophistication," IZA Discussion Papers 11326, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp11326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp11326.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2016. "Endogenous Depth of Reasoning," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(4), pages 1297-1333.
    2. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2012. "The 11-20 Money Request Game: A Level-k Reasoning Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3561-3573, December.
    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. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2020. "Introduction to special issue “Understanding Cognition and Decision Making by Children.” Studying decision-making in children: Challenges and opportunities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 777-783.
    3. Brice Corgnet & Mark DeSantis & David Porter, 2020. "Information Aggregation and the Cognitive Make-up of Traders," Working Papers 20-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2021. "Information aggregation and the cognitive make-up of market participants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    5. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2021. "Young children use commodities as an indirect medium of exchange," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 48-61.
    6. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2020. "Property is Dummy Proof: An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "Theory of Mind and Strategic Decision-Making," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1191, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    8. Nikoloz Kudashvili & Philipp Lergetporer, 2019. "Do Minorities Misrepresent Their Ethnicity to Avoid Discrimination?," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp644, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.

    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. Alaoui, Larbi & Janezic, Katharina A. & Penta, Antonio, 2020. "Reasoning about others' reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    4. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Going...going...wrong: a test of the level-k (and cognitive hierarchy) models of bidding behaviour," Economics Series Working Papers 959, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    6. Itzhak Rasooly, 2021. "Going... going... wrong: a test of the level-k (and cognitive hierarchy) models of bidding behaviour," Papers 2111.05686, arXiv.org.
    7. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Why finance professionals hold green and brown assets? A lab-in-the-field experiment [Pourquoi investir dans le vert et le brun ? Une expérience sur des professionnels de la finance]," Working Papers hal-03285376, HAL.
    8. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.
    9. María Cubel & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2014. "Gender differences and stereotypes in the beauty contest," Working Papers 2014/13, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    10. María Cubel & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2014. "Gender differences and stereotypes in the beauty contest," Working Papers 2014/13, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    11. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2022. "Risk-return trade-offs in the context of environmental impact: a lab-in-the-field experiment with finance professionals," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03883121, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    12. Feng, Jun & Qin, Xiangdong & Wang, Xiaoyuan, 2021. "A Bayesian cognitive hierarchy model with fixed reasoning levels," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 704-723.
    13. Li, Ying Xue & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2020. "Strategic reasoning in persuasion games: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 329-367.
    14. Maria Cubel & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2016. "Gender differences and stereotypes in strategic thinking," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2016/338, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. Dan Levin & Luyao Zhang, 2022. "Bridging Level-K to Nash Equilibrium," Papers 2202.12292, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    16. King King Li & Kang Rong, 2018. "Choices in the 11–20 Game: The Role of Risk Aversion," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Bayer, Ralph C. & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Logical omniscience at the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-49.
    18. Avoyan, Ala & Schotter, Andrew, 2020. "Attention in games: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    19. Burkhard C. Schipper & Hang Zhou, 2022. "Level-k Thinking in the Extensive Form," Working Papers 352, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    20. Wanqun Zhao, 2020. "Cost of Reasoning and Strategic Sophistication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cognitive skills; theory-of-mind; cognitive ability; fluid intelligence; strategic sophistication; age; children; experiment; level-k; bounded rationality; non-equilibrium thinking; intentions; gift-exchange game; competitive game; strategic game; strategic interaction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    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:iza:izadps:dp11326. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.