Cognitive Ability, Character Skills, and Learning to Play Equilibrium: A Level-<i>k</i>Analysis

Gill, David; Prowse, Victoria L.

doi:10.1086/688849

Cited by 207 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this respect, our evidence is perfectly in line with what is reported in the literature: for all three questions, the impulsive (System-1) responses are much more frequent than the reflective (System-2) ones (Gill and Prowse, 2015). Figure 1 also shows that the response distribution is not completely polarized between these two answers: there are also alternatives -neither reflective, nor impulsivethat are selected by a non negligible fraction of individuals.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Cueva

Iturbe-Ormaetxe

Mata-Pérez

et al. 2016

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study how cognitive abilities correlate with behavioral choices by collecting evidence from almost 1, 200 subjects across eight experimental projects concerning a wide variety of tasks, including some classic risk and social preference elicitation protocols. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) has been administered to all our experimental subjects, which makes our dataset one of the largest in the literature. We partition our subject pool into three groups depending on their CRT performance. Reflective subjects are those answering at least two of the three CRT questions correctly. Impulsive subjects are those who are unable to suppress the instinctive impulse to follow the intuitive -although incorrect-answer in at least two 2 questions. The remaining subjects form a residual group. We find that females score significantly less than males in the CRT and that, in their wrong answers, impulsive ones are observed more frequently. The 2D-4D ratio, which is higher for females, is correlated negatively with subjects' CRT score. We also find that differences in risk attitudes across CRT groups crucially depend on the elicitation task. Finally, impulsive subjects have higher social (inequity-averse) concerns, while reflective subjects are more likely to satisfy basic consistency requirements in lottery choices. JEL Classification: C91, D81, J16

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Cueva

Iturbe-Ormaetxe

Mata-Pérez

et al. 2016

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the term rationality we refer to the cognitive abilities of a player that subtend reasoning, monitoring, planning actions, setting, and reaching goals, which are likely to help strategic success (Gill and Prowse, 2016). Rationality roughly corresponds to the so-called “executive functions” (Jurado and Rosselli, 2007; Diamond, 2013), which are known to be developmentally stable (Miyake and Friedman, 2012) and are assessed in clinical neuropsychological settings by using tasks that tap differently in one function or another (Miyake et al, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Actual Strategic Behavior to Construct a Measure of Strategic Ability

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic interactions have been studied extensively in the area of judgment and decision-making. However, so far no specific measure of a decision-maker's ability to be successful in strategic interactions has been proposed and tested. Our contribution is the development of a measure of strategic ability that borrows from both game theory and psychology. Such measure is aimed at providing an estimation of the likelihood of success in many social activities that involve strategic interaction among multiple decision-makers. To construct a reliable measure of strategic ability, that we propose to call “Strategic Quotient” (SQ), we designed a test where each item is a game and where, therefore, the individual obtained score depends on the distribution of choices of other decision-makers taking the test. The test is designed to provide information on the abilities related to two dimensions, mentalization and rationality, that we argue are crucial to strategic success, with each dimension being characterized by two main factors. Principal component analysis on preliminary data shows that indeed four factors (two for rationality, two for mentalization) account for strategic success in most of the strategically simpler games of the test. Moreover, two more strategically sophisticated games are inserted in the test and are used to investigate if and to what extent the four factors obtained by simpler games can predict strategic success in more sophisticated strategic interactions. Overall, the collected empirical evidence points to the possibility of building a SQ measure using only simple games designed to capture information about the four identified factors.

show abstract

“…The education and age coefficients remain stable when we add covariates, or, in other words, personality traits, abilities, and education are orthogonal and explain different sources of inventive performance (Roberts et al, 2007;Borghans et al, 2008;Gill and Prowse, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Power of Individual-Level Drivers of Inventive Performance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. (Version November 9th, 2015) Abstract Based on an established theoretical framework of the drivers of inventive performance, the so-called KSAO (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other) factors, this paper seeks to explain empirically the performance of inventors throughout their careers. We combine survey information spanning the inventors' entire careers and psychometric test evidence, with patent history data for more than 1,000 inventors. We also control for variables that have traditionally been included in estimations of inventive performance such as inventor age and a broad list of applicant institution-, technology-, patent-, and period-related information. We show that educational level, skills acquired during the career, personality traits, career motivations, cognitive abilities, and cognitive problem-solving style are significantly related to inventive performance. Key-words: Inventive performance; individual drivers; patent history; survey JEL Codes: J24; M54; O31; O32 1 Corresponding author. University of Würzburg, Sanderring 2, 97070 Würzburg, E-Mail: thomas.zwick@uni-wuerzburg.de. We would like to thank Lee Doris, Francesco Lissoni, Eduardo Melero, and Jana Oehmichen for good suggestions. We also thank the OECD for providing us with the classifications of clean technology patents. The authors acknowledge financial support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

show abstract

Cognitive Ability, Character Skills, and Learning to Play Equilibrium: A Level-kAnalysis

Cited by 207 publications

References 89 publications

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

Assessing Actual Strategic Behavior to Construct a Measure of Strategic Ability

The Power of Individual-Level Drivers of Inventive Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About