Abstract
Can differences in cognitive reflection explain other-regarding behavior? To test this, I use the three-item Cognitive Reflection Task to classify individuals as intuitive or reflective and correlate this measure with choices in three games that each subject participates in. The main sample consists of 236 individuals who completed the dictator game, ultimatum game and a third-party punishment task. Subjects afterwards completed the three-item Cognitive Reflection Test. Results showed that intuitive individuals acted more prosocially in all social dilemma tasks. These individuals were more likely to serve as a norm enforcer and third-party punish a selfish act in the dictator game. Reflective individuals were found more likely to act consistently in a self-interested manner across the three games.
Highlights
Human societies depend on their members acting cooperatively
Social sanctioning is crucial for the maintenance of cooperative behavior when there exist material incentives to deviate from collectively desirable behavior, such as benefiting from a public good without bearing the cost of contributing
Sanctioning behavior can be explained by strong reciprocity, which is defined by a willingness to sacrifice resources to reward cooperative actions and to punish hostile actions even when this is costly and provides neither present nor future material rewards for the reciprocator [1,2]
Summary
Human societies depend on their members acting cooperatively. Social sanctioning is crucial for the maintenance of cooperative behavior when there exist material incentives to deviate from collectively desirable behavior, such as benefiting from a public good without bearing the cost of contributing. Sanctioning behavior can be explained by strong reciprocity, which is defined by a willingness to sacrifice resources to reward cooperative actions and to punish hostile actions even when this is costly and provides neither present nor future material rewards for the reciprocator [1,2]. Individuals acting as norm enforcers enable cooperative behavior because of an understanding and expectation that a deviation will be sanctioned [3]. In [4], the majority of subjects were willing to engage in third-party punishment. That is, they punished a hostile action even though it did not affect their personal earnings
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.
