IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201424.html

Reaction Times in a Field Experiment: Is Really All about Instinctiveness

Author

Abstract

Several papers in experimental economics use reaction times (RTs) to assess whether a decision is instinctive or not. This paper analyses a field experiment (the behaviour of athletes at the World Swimming Championships) in three steps, where only the (expected) payoff changes (i.e. increases) from one step to the next. The payoff depends on the time of the race, of which the RT is part. Considering, for each competition, a homogeneous sample of swimmers, the paper shows that RTs decrease as the expected payoff increase. The observed reductions are comparable in magnitude to those observed in other experiments, where conscious/cognitive process are induced (or, at least, present). The paper concludes claiming that a share of the observed RTs is determined through a cognitive process, and therefore RTs are not pure measures of instinctiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Migheli, Matteo, 2014. "Reaction Times in a Field Experiment: Is Really All about Instinctiveness," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201424, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2014dip/wp_24_2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    2. Piovesan, Marco & Wengström, Erik, 2009. "Fast or fair? A study of response times," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 193-196, November.
    3. Arad, Ayala & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2012. "Multi-dimensional iterative reasoning in action: The case of the Colonel Blotto game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 571-585.
    4. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    5. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2001. "A theorist's view of experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 615-628, May.
    6. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2012. "Response Time and Decision Making: A “Free” Experimental Study," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275782, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Ariel Rubenstein, 2013. "Response time and decision making: An experimental study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 540-551, September.
    3. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2012. "Response Time and Decision Making: A “Free” Experimental Study," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275782, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Ralf Bergheim & Michael W.M. Roos, 2013. "Intuition and Reasoning in Choosing Ambiguous and Risky Lotteries," Ruhr Economic Papers 0440, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Bergheim, Ralf & Roos, Michael W. M., 2013. "Intuition and Reasoning in Choosing Ambiguous and Risky Lotteries," Ruhr Economic Papers 440, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:hal:journl:halshs-01224135 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Gilles Grolleau & Angela Sutan & Sana El Harbi & Marwa Jedidi, 2018. "Do We Need More Time To Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 400-409, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2021. "Is response time predictive of choice? An experimental study of threshold strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 87-117, March.
    14. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2022. "Leveraging the Honor Code: Public Goods Contributions under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 591-616, March.
    15. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    16. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Impulsive Behavior in Competition: Testing Theories of Overbidding in Rent-Seeking Contests," Working Papers 16-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    17. Shu-Heng Chen & Ye-Rong Du & Lee-Xieng Yang, 2014. "Cognitive capacity and cognitive hierarchy: a study based on beauty contest experiments," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 69-105, April.
    18. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Julie Rosaz & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Truth Telling Under Oath," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 426-438, January.
    19. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
    20. Lindner, Florian & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Level-k reasoning and time pressure in the 11–20 money request game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 542-545.
    21. Giovanna Devetag & Sibilla Di Guida, 2010. "Feature-based Choice and Similarity in Normal-form Games: An Experimental Study," LEM Papers Series 2010/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    More about this item

    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:uto:dipeco:201424. 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: Laura Ballestra or Cinzia Carlevaris (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.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.