24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: evidence from USA and India

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 USA 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 and (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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Theory of justice

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Human cooperation.

            Why should you help a competitor? Why should you contribute to the public good if free riders reap the benefits of your generosity? Cooperation in a competitive world is a conundrum. Natural selection opposes the evolution of cooperation unless specific mechanisms are at work. Five such mechanisms have been proposed: direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, spatial selection, multilevel selection, and kin selection. Here we discuss empirical evidence from laboratory experiments and field studies of human interactions for each mechanism. We also consider cooperation in one-shot, anonymous interactions for which no mechanisms are apparent. We argue that this behavior reflects the overgeneralization of cooperative strategies learned in the context of direct and indirect reciprocity: we show that automatic, intuitive responses favor cooperative strategies that reciprocate. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Spontaneous giving and calculated greed.

              Cooperation is central to human social behaviour. However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others. Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework. We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring 'rational' self-interest. To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games. We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative. Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions. Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection. To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous. We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism. Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                R Soc Open Sci
                R Soc Open Sci
                RSOS
                royopensci
                Royal Society Open Science
                The Royal Society Publishing
                2054-5703
                February 2017
                15 February 2017
                15 February 2017
                : 4
                : 2
                : 160605
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI) , Amsterdam 1098 XG, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Economics, Middlesex University Business School , Hendon Campus, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT, UK
                [3 ]EMLYON Business School, University of Lyon , GATE L-SE UMR 5824, 69131 Ecully, France
                [4 ]Business School, University of Nottingham , Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
                Author notes
                Author for correspondence: Antonio M. Espín e-mail: a.espin@ 123456mdx.ac.uk

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3679375.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0579-0166
                Article
                rsos160605
                10.1098/rsos.160605
                5367314
                28386421
                19973a08-2b27-4984-b7d5-2e743145f947
                © 2017 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 August 2016
                : 16 January 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Argyros School of Business and Economics at Chapman University;
                Funded by: University of Nottingham Business School;
                Funded by: Spanish Ministry of Education;
                Award ID: 2012/00103/001
                Funded by: International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009580;
                Funded by: Ministry of Economy and Competence;
                Award ID: 2016/00122/001
                Funded by: Proyectos de Excelencia de la Junta Andalucía;
                Award ID: P12.SEJ.1436
                Funded by: Spanish Plan Nacional I+D MCI;
                Award ID: ECO2013-44879-R
                Categories
                1001
                14
                42
                Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                February, 2017

                efficiency,equality,dual-process models,intuition,deliberation

                Comments

                Comment on this article