The cognitive foundations of cooperation

Alós–Ferrer, Carlos; Garagnani, Michele

doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.019

Cited by 44 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We find no evidence for heterogeneity when examining this full distribution of conditional treatment effects, in contrast to the hypothesis that the inconclusive evidence of intuition effects may be explained by underlying heterogeneity in how intuition affects prosociality. We find no evidence that the time constraint effect depends on subjects' predisposition towards prosocial behavior (Alós-Ferrer & Garagnani, 2018;Chen & Krajbich, 2018). Neither do we find support for the hypothesis that intuitive decisions are prosocial only for women (Rand et al, 2016), or that subjects' level of trust in everyday institutions plays a role .…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

“…Rand et al (2016) claim that the SHH predicts "intuitive altruism" only for women. Another potential explanation for our null result is that time constraints have opposing effects depending on subjects' initial predisposition towards prosocialitysome argue that intuitive decision making reinforces subjects' initial predisposition (Alós-Ferrer & Garagnani, 2018;Chen & Krajbich, 2018).…”

Section: 2testing the "Heterogeneity Hypothesis"mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Similar treatments in the Dictator game also contain mixed evidence; some find no effect (Hauge et al, 2016;Merkel & Lohse, 2018;Tinghög et al, 2016) and others report an effect (Schulz et al, 2014), while a meta-analysis suggests that there is an effect of intuitive processing on altruism only for women (Rand et al, 2016). A large string of papers has suggested that the effect of intuitive decisions on prosocial behavior is heterogeneous (Alós-Ferrer & Garagnani, 2018;Chen & Krajbich, 2018;Rand, 2016;Rand et al, 2016;Rand, 2018;McAuliffe et al, 2018;Strømland, Tjøtta & Torsvik, 2016;Goeschl & Lohse, 2018), which could account for the mixed findings in this literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?

Strømland¹,

Torsvik²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heterogenous treatment effects make it difficult to extrapolate from one research setting to another. However, what appears to be differences in effects across subpopulations may simply be false positives. This paper uses a representative sample of the Norwegian population (N = 1390) to systematically test for several proposed sources of heterogeneity in the literature on intuitive prosociality – a literature with large variation in results, which some researchers claim results from heterogeneity in the underlying effect. We use time pressure to induce intuitive decision making, and exogenously vary participants’ experience with the game. We find no overall effect of time constraints on dictator game for inexperienced subjects, and there is no evidence for an interaction effect between subject experience and the effect of time pressure. As a more general test of treatment effect heterogeneity, we consider the full distribution of treatment effects conditional on various proposed moderators in the literature. The distribution of conditional effects is consistent with no causal effect of time pressure on giving and no systematic heterogeneity in the underlying effect across subpopulations.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

Section: 2testing the "Heterogeneity Hypothesis"mentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?

Strømland¹,

Torsvik²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A third, more radical, solution is to have participants practice in a series of games, before the actual decision, so that they get used to respond quickly, which helps to minimize the proportion of participants who fail to comply with the time pressure (Everett et al, 2017). Another solution that has been recently proposed is to incentivize participants to reply quickly by making them lose money for each second they spend on the decision screen (Alós-Ferrer & Garagnani, 2018).…”

Section: Time Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another important question regards the role of potential moderators. Alós-Ferrer and Garagnani (2018) found that the effect of time pressure on cooperation depends on the social value orientation, such that pro-socials tend to become more cooperative when deciding under pressure, whereas individualists tend to be unaffected by the manipulation and competitive subjects even tend to become more selfish. 12 To explain these results, they proposed that time pressure makes people more likely to behave according to their social value orientation, while time delay makes people readapt this initial response towards what they believe to be the norm in the given situation.…”

Section: Outlook and Open Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

Capraro¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Which social decisions are intuitive? Which are deliberative? The dual-process approach to human sociality has emerged in the last decades as a vibrant and exciting area of research. Here, I review the existing literature on the cognitive basis of cooperation, altruism, honesty, positive and negative reciprocity, and (act) utilitarianism. I conclude by introducing a game-theoretical framework that organizes the majority of the empirical regularities. This framework extends Rand and colleagues’ Social Heuristics Hypothesis to any one-shot game G. The core assumption of this “General Social Heuristics Hypothesis” is that, under intuition, people play a Nash equilibrium of the “real analogue of G”, G^real, while under deliberation people play a Nash equilibrium of G. G^real differs from G along two dimensions: G is one-shot, while G^real might be iterated; the payoffs of G^real might be different from the payoffs of G, although they are ordered in (almost) the same way.

show abstract

Seasons, stress, salience, and support for cooperative groundwater management

Suter,

Guilfoos,

Schoengold

2023

J of Agr & App Econ Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative management of shared groundwater resources in the High Plains region of the United States is critical to support sustainable agricultural‐based economies. This research uses a repeat‐sample survey of agricultural producers in the states of Colorado and Nebraska to analyze how seasonal changes and variation in stress and salience influence support for groundwater management. We find that support for groundwater management tends to be lower in the fall, when agricultural producers are engaged in harvest activities. The results also reveal that changes in the salience of commodity prices and water availability can drive changes in support for groundwater management.

show abstract

The cognitive foundations of cooperation

Cited by 44 publications

References 96 publications

Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?

Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

Seasons, stress, salience, and support for cooperative groundwater management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About