Smart or selfish – When smart guys finish nice

Abstract

In three different variants of an one-shot public good game I analyze the relationship between cooperation and cognitive abilities, assessed through the cognitive reflection test (CRT). In a between-subjects design, the baseline case is contrasted with two treatment conditions that allow to control for two potentially moderating factors: By employing a test for the presence of confusion, the first condition scrutinizes whether higher cognitive abilities are correlated with cooperation proper or simply grant a better understanding of the incentive structure. The second condition explores the proposition that the link between cognitive abilities and cooperation could depend on the complexity of the decision situation. To exogenously create a cognitively more demanding choice setting, subjects had to decide under time pressure. I find a strong and positive relationship between CRT-scores and cooperation, that is not driven by confusion. Time pressure has a strongly moderating effect on this relationship.

Deliberation Favours Social Efficiency by Making People Disregard Their Relative Shares: Evidence from US and India

“…Thus, if social efficiency concerns (and probably self-interest) require deliberation while egalitarian and spiteful motives, as well as reciprocity (54), respond to intuition, the net effect of promoting intuition vs. deliberation on social dilemma behaviour is not straightforward. This could partially explain why a number of studies have failed to find consistent effects or have even yielded conflicting results (46,(56)(57)(58)(59)(60).…”

Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence

“…Baghestanian and Frey (2014) find that high-CRT GO players tend to be more cooperative in a series of classical games. Lohse (2015) finds that high-CRT people contribute more in a classical one-shot public good game. Interestingly, this effect disappears when they have little time to make their decisions.…”

Adaptive cooperation in the face of social exclusion

“…Some evidence suggest that when participants use fewer cognitive resources (i.e., deliberate less) they are more cooperative (Rand, Greene, & Nowak, 2012), but others found evidence for the opposite (Achtziger, Alós-Ferrer, & Wagner, 2016), or no effect at all (Bouwmeester et al, 2017;Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). For example, participants with higher cognitive reflection scores have been shown to invest more money in a one shot public good game (Lohse, 2016). Indeed, giving money away in an investment game may be a smart move with a cooperative investor, but it may not be the "intelligent" course of action with an uncooperative partner (Rand, 2016).…”