Abstract
Groups make decisions on both the production and the distribution of resources. These decisions typically involve a tension between increasing the total level of group resources (i.e. social efficiency) and distributing these resources among group members (i.e. individuals’ relative shares). This is the case because the redistribution process may destroy part of the resources, thus resulting in socially inefficient allocations. Here we apply a dual-process approach to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this fundamental tension. We conducted a set of experiments to examine the extent to which different allocation decisions respond to intuition or deliberation. In a newly developed approach, we assess intuition and deliberation at both the trait level (using the Cognitive Reflection Test, henceforth CRT) and the state level (through the experimental manipulation of response times). To test for robustness, experiments were conducted in two countries: the US and India. Despite absolute level differences across countries, in both locations we show that: (i) time pressure and low CRT scores are associated with individuals’ concerns for their relative shares; (ii) time delay and high CRT scores are associated with individuals’ concerns for social efficiency. These findings demonstrate that deliberation favours social efficiency by overriding individuals’ intuitive tendency to focus on relative shares.
Highlights
Groups of individuals, from small-scale societies to large modern organizations, are typically involved in both the production and the distribution of resources [1,2]
In panel (a) of figures 1–4, we display the proportion of subjects whose choices can be classified according to the aforementioned four categories—social efficiency, egalitarianism, spitefulness and self-interest, respectively—broken down into below- and above-median Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) scores
Across two different countries and at both the trait and the state levels of analysis, we found strong evidence that: (i) intuition promotes individuals’ concern for relative pay-offs and (ii) deliberation promotes individuals’ concern for social efficiency
Summary
From small-scale societies to large modern organizations, are typically involved in both the production and the distribution of resources [1,2]. Egalitarianism refers to a motivation for reducing pay-off differences among individuals, whereas spitefulness refers to an individual’s willingness to maximize the difference between her own pay-off and that of others [5,6,7]. Both egalitarian and spiteful motives may lead an individual to actively change the group members’ relative shares even if the resulting distribution wastes resources and is socially inefficient. People are frequently willing to forego personal gain in order to increase group resources, equalize pay-offs or maximize their relative share
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have