Abstract
In this article, we explore how independently reported measures of subjects' cognitive capabilities, preferences, and sociodemographic characteristics relate to their behavior in a real-effort moral dilemma experiment. To do this, we use a unique dataset, the Chapman Preferences and Characteristics Instrument Set (CPCIS), which contains over 30 standardized measures of preferences and characteristics. We find that simple correlation analysis provides an incomplete picture of how individual measures relate to behavior. In contrast, clustering subjects into groups based on observed behavior in the real-effort task reveals important systematic differences in individual characteristics across groups. However, while we find more differences, these differences are not systematic and difficult to interpret. These results indicate a need for more comprehensive theory explaining how combinations of different individual characteristics impact behavior is needed.
Highlights
Mainstream economic theory routinely assumes that individuals have stable, consistent preferences that at least partly determine their behavior and revealed preferences (Samuelson, 1948; Stigler and Becker, 1977)
We proceed as follows: First, we study the correlation between experimental actions and individual characteristics for all those subjects for whom we have the Chapman Preferences and Characteristics Instrument Set (CPCIS) data (A summary of each of the CPCIS data measure can be found in the Appendix)
Understanding how individual characteristics influence behavior is a fundamental task of the economist, psychologist, and scientist
Summary
Mainstream economic theory routinely assumes that individuals have stable, consistent preferences that at least partly determine their behavior and revealed preferences (Samuelson, 1948; Stigler and Becker, 1977). Most lab experiments attempt to induce consistent preferences using conditional rewards based on Smith’s (1976) Induced Value Theory. In these experiments, failure to observe the behavior implied by the induced preferences leads researchers to question the narrow self-interest hypothesis and search for alternative theories. Failure to observe the behavior implied by the induced preferences leads researchers to question the narrow self-interest hypothesis and search for alternative theories This process has contributed to a deeper understanding of preferences by examining how experimental designs and subject characteristics affect behavior (Frank and Glass, 1991; Becker, 2013). Experimental results imply that subjects are partially motivated by fairness (Rabin, 1993), equality (Bolton and Ockenfels, 2006), ambiguity aversion (Fox and Tversky, 1995), and identity (Akerlof and Kranton, 2000)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
