|
on Neuroeconomics |
|
Issue of 2024‒05‒27
four papers chosen by |
| By: | Iván Barreda-Tarrazona (LEE and Department of Economics, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain); Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez (LEE and Department of Economics, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain); Marina Pavan (LEE & Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón-Spain); Gerardo Sabater-Grande (LEE and Department of Economics, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain) |
| Abstract: | We gather information from a large laboratory sample comprising 1161 subjects and study gender differences in altruism using a dual-role dictator game. For robustness purposes, we control for factors potentially affecting the role of gender in dictator giving, such as the subject's age, cognitive ability, and personality traits, together with the dictator's response time and self-reported emotions motivating the decision. We find that women behave in a significantly more generous way than men: after controlling for the factors mentioned above, females transfer 7.5 percentage points more of their endowment than males. The only factor moderating this relationship between gender and dictator giving is agreeableness, which increases transfers significantly more for males than for females. |
| Keywords: | altruism; gender differences; dictator game; big five personality traits; cognitive ability; emotions. |
| JEL: | C91 C72 D64 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jau:wpaper:2024/03&r=neu |
| By: | Ruggeri, Kai (Columbia University); Abate Romero Landini, Giampaolo; Busch, Katharina; Cafarelli, Valentina; Doubravová, Barbora; Gurol, Deniz Misra; Miralem, Melika; Nilsson, Fredrik; Ashcroft-Jones, Sarah (University of Heidelberg); Stock, Friederike |
| Abstract: | Positive deviants are individuals from disadvantaged circumstances who outperform the typically negative outcomes for their group. Research on positive deviance in behavioral sciences is scarce, although such information could provide valuable insights into overcoming inequalities useful for developing interventions. We tested choice patterns between positive deviants, low-income individuals, and the general population. Our aim was to investigate whether positive deviants perform differently on cognitive bias tasks compared to other individuals with low incomes or the general population. The instrument was tested in multiple countries (N = 1, 722) to determine potential differentiation based on systems-level, social, and structural factors. We found no differences between income groups in the fourteen choice patterns assessed in our instrument involving cognitive biases, and only anecdotal differences in some financial behaviors. Such findings suggest that, while behavioral interventions will benefit individuals where appropriately implemented, systemic and structural factors are most critical for improving the financial well-being of entire populations. |
| Date: | 2024–04–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:f8hyk&r=neu |
| By: | Charlotte Cordes; Jana Friedrichsen; Simeon Schudy |
| Abstract: | Procrastination is often attributed to time-inconsistent preferences but may also arise when individuals derive anticipatory utility from holding optimistic beliefs about their future effort costs. This study provides a rigorous empirical test for this notion of ‘motivated procrastination’. In a longitudinal experiment over four weeks, individuals must complete a cumbersome task of unknown length. We find that exogenous variation in scope for motivated reasoning results in optimistic beliefs among workers, which causally increase the deferral of work to the future. The roots for biased beliefs stem from motivated memory, such that procrastination may persist even if uncertainty is eventually resolved. |
| Keywords: | anticipatory utility, beliefs, memory, motivated cognition, procrastination, real effort, task allocation |
| JEL: | C91 D83 D84 D90 D91 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11072&r=neu |
| By: | Bor, Jacob; Venkataramani, Atheendar; Williams, David; Tsai, Alexander |
| Abstract: | Our previously published work (Bor, Venkataramani, Williams, and Tsai, 2018) showed that officer-involved killings of unarmed Black people have adverse mental health spillover effects on Black people in the general U.S. population. In a recent preprint, McCrain, Adams, Nix, and Del Pozo (2024) raised concerns about our methods, findings, and the interpretation of our findings. In this reply, we interrogate and address each of their concerns, showing that their replication introduced bias not present in the original. We also use the opportunity to conduct additional robustness checks. We find nothing to reduce confidence in our findings. Further buttressing our confidence are the multiple additional out-of-sample replications of our findings that have accrued in the literature over the past 5 years. |
| Date: | 2024–04–24 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:6hx5p&r=neu |