IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v11y2020i2p21-d355102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Intuition of Punishment: A Study of Fairness Preferences and Cognitive Ability

Author

Listed:
  • Markus Seier

    (Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark)

Abstract

Can differences in cognitive reflection explain other-regarding behavior? To test this, I use the three-item Cognitive Reflection Task to classify individuals as intuitive or reflective and correlate this measure with choices in three games that each subject participates in. The main sample consists of 236 individuals who completed the dictator game, ultimatum game and a third-party punishment task. Subjects afterwards completed the three-item Cognitive Reflection Test. Results showed that intuitive individuals acted more prosocially in all social dilemma tasks. These individuals were more likely to serve as a norm enforcer and third-party punish a selfish act in the dictator game . Reflective individuals were found more likely to act consistently in a self-interested manner across the three games.

Suggested Citation

  • Markus Seier, 2020. "The Intuition of Punishment: A Study of Fairness Preferences and Cognitive Ability," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:21-:d:355102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/2/21/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/11/2/21/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Krajbich & Björn Bartling & Todd Hare & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    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. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Mata-Pérez, Esther & Ponti, Giovanni & Sartarelli, Marcello & Yu, Haihan & Zhukova, Vita, 2016. "Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 81-93.
    4. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    5. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    6. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    7. Blanco, Mariana & Engelmann, Dirk & Koch, Alexander K. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2014. "Preferences and beliefs in a sequential social dilemma: a within-subjects analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 122-135.
    8. Wim De Neys & Nikolay Novitskiy & Leen Geeraerts & Jennifer Ramautar & Johan Wagemans, 2011. "Cognitive Control and Individual Differences in Economic Ultimatum Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-9, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    12. Misato Inaba & Yumi Inoue & Satoshi Akutsu & Nobuyuki Takahashi & Toshio Yamagishi, 2018. "Preference and strategy in proposer’s prosocial giving in the ultimatum game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    13. Nielsen, Ulrik H. & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik, 2014. "Second thoughts on free riding," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 136-139.
    14. Colin F. Camerer & Ernst Fehr, "undated". "Measuring Social Norms and Preferences using Experimental Games: A Guide for Social Scientists," IEW - Working Papers 097, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:332-341 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    17. 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.
    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. Russell Golman, 2020. "New Directions in Behavioral Game Theory: Introduction to the Special Issue," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-3, November.
    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).

    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. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
    2. 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.
    3. Akihiro Nishi & Nicholas A Christakis & David G Rand, 2017. "Cooperation, decision time, and culture: Online experiments with American and Indian participants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-9, February.
    4. 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..
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland, 2021. "Salience and social choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1215-1241, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Sascha Grehl & Andreas Tutić, 2022. "Intuition, reflection, and prosociality: Evidence from a field experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. Jeremy Cone & David G Rand, 2014. "Time Pressure Increases Cooperation in Competitively Framed Social Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Ogawa, Kazuhito & Kawamura, Tetsuya & Matsushita, Keiichiro, 2020. "Effects of cognitive ability and age on giving in dictator game experiments," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 323-335.
    19. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jgames:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:21-:d:355102. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.