IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp15292.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Losses Trigger Deliberative Reasoning?

Author

Listed:
  • Carpenter, Jeffrey P.

    (Middlebury College)

  • Munro, David

    (Middlebury College)

Abstract

There is a large literature evaluating the dual process model of cognition, including the biases and heuristic it implies. To advance this literature, we focus on what triggers decision makers to switch from the intuitive process (aka System 1) to the more deliberative process (aka System 2). Based on previous studies indicating that potential losses increase cognitive effort, we posit that losses may also differentially trigger System 2 reasoning. To evaluate this hypothesis, we design an experiment based on a task that has been developed to distinguish between System 1 and System 2 thinking – the cognitive reflection task. Replicating previous research, we find that losses elicit more effort (measured by the time spent on the task and the incidence of correct answers). However, we also find that losses differentially reduce the incidence of intuitive answers, consistent with triggering System 2. To complement these results, we provide tests of the robustness of our results using aggregated data, subgroup analysis and the imposition of a cognitive load to hinder the activation of System 2.

Suggested Citation

  • Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Munro, David, 2022. "Do Losses Trigger Deliberative Reasoning?," IZA Discussion Papers 15292, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp15292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp15292.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    2. Bence Bago & Wim De Neys, 2017. "Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory," Post-Print hal-03510054, HAL.
    3. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    4. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    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. Korenok, Oleg & Munro, David & Chen, Jiayi, 2022. "Inflation and attention thresholds," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1175, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    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. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Schwaiger, Rene & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:170-178 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ding, Shuze & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr & Puzzello, Daniela & Tucker, Steven & Williams, Arlington, 2018. "Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 19-27.
    6. Ball, Sheryl & Katz, Benjamin & Li, Flora & Smith, Alec, 2023. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision-making: a replication attempt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 226-242.
    7. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Jana Sadeh, 2021. "Experimental evidence on the effect of incentives and domain in risk aversion and discounting tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 203-224, June.
    8. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:23-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Burnham, Terence C. & Cesarini, David & Wallace, Björn & Johannesson, Magnus & Lichtenstein, Paul, 2007. "Billiards and Brains: Cognitive Ability and Behavior in a p-Beauty Contest," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 684, Stockholm School of Economics.
    11. Matthieu Raoelison & Wim De Neys, 2019. "Do we de-bias ourselves?: The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 170-178, March.
    12. Adam Dominiak & Peter Duersch, 2024. "Choice under uncertainty and cognitive load," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 133-161, April.
    13. Bago, Bence & Rand, David & Pennycook, Gordon, 2022. "Does deliberation decrease belief in conspiracies?," IAST Working Papers 22-137, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    14. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Brice Corgnet, 2022. "Cognitive finance," Chapters, in: Sascha Füllbrunn & Ernan Haruvy (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, chapter 7, pages 73-88, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Barnabas Szaszi & Bence Palfi & Aba Szollosi & Pascal J. Kieslich & Balazs Aczel, 2018. "Thinking dynamics and individual differences: Mouse-tracking analysis of the denominator neglect task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 23-32, January.
    16. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    17. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    18. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-02050514, HAL.
    19. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    20. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    21. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    22. Francis Bloch & Bhaskar Dutta & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2016. "The formation of partnerships in social networks," Post-Print halshs-01421347, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dual process theory; cognitive effort; loss; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics

    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:dp15292. 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.