Cognitive Load in Economic Decisions

A. Achtziger, Carlos Alós-Ferrer, Alexander Ritschel
{"title":"Cognitive Load in Economic Decisions","authors":"A. Achtziger, Carlos Alós-Ferrer, Alexander Ritschel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3654144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intuitive decision making has a large and often negative impact in economic decisions, but its measurement and quantification remains challenging. Following research from psychology, behavioral economists have often attempted to causally manipulate the balance of intuition and deliberation by relying on experimental manipulations as cognitive load. However, these attempts have resulted in mixed success, with many null results and no clear general pattern. We explain the possible reasons behind these developments and offer avenues for improvement. First, we show that a very simple formal model of decision processes offers a straightforward test to determine whether cognitive load has been successfully induced, hence disentangling failed inductions and true null results. Specifically, cognitive load in economically-relevant tasks must result in shorter response times. Second, we show that the intuitive arguments on the behavioral implications of cognitive load do not hold on closer, formal examination, unless strong assumptions are made that may or may not hold in typical economic experiments. We then report on seven economic experiments (joint N = 628) using different cognitive load manipulations and confirm the implications of the model. While the effect on response times is strong and pervasive, behavioral effects are weak and elusive. Our research serves as a warning on the differences between economic tasks and psychological experiments and the difficulties associated with importing methods uncritically.","PeriodicalId":375605,"journal":{"name":"DecisionSciRN: Economic Decision Theory (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DecisionSciRN: Economic Decision Theory (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3654144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Intuitive decision making has a large and often negative impact in economic decisions, but its measurement and quantification remains challenging. Following research from psychology, behavioral economists have often attempted to causally manipulate the balance of intuition and deliberation by relying on experimental manipulations as cognitive load. However, these attempts have resulted in mixed success, with many null results and no clear general pattern. We explain the possible reasons behind these developments and offer avenues for improvement. First, we show that a very simple formal model of decision processes offers a straightforward test to determine whether cognitive load has been successfully induced, hence disentangling failed inductions and true null results. Specifically, cognitive load in economically-relevant tasks must result in shorter response times. Second, we show that the intuitive arguments on the behavioral implications of cognitive load do not hold on closer, formal examination, unless strong assumptions are made that may or may not hold in typical economic experiments. We then report on seven economic experiments (joint N = 628) using different cognitive load manipulations and confirm the implications of the model. While the effect on response times is strong and pervasive, behavioral effects are weak and elusive. Our research serves as a warning on the differences between economic tasks and psychological experiments and the difficulties associated with importing methods uncritically.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经济决策中的认知负荷
直觉决策在经济决策中具有巨大且往往是负面的影响,但其测量和量化仍然具有挑战性。根据心理学的研究,行为经济学家经常试图通过依赖实验操作作为认知负荷来操纵直觉和思考的平衡。然而,这些尝试成败参半,许多结果无效,也没有明确的总体模式。我们解释了这些发展背后的可能原因,并提供了改进的途径。首先,我们展示了一个非常简单的决策过程的形式化模型,提供了一个直接的测试,以确定认知负荷是否已成功诱导,从而解开了失败的归纳和真实的零结果。具体来说,经济相关任务的认知负荷必然导致更短的反应时间。其次,我们表明,关于认知负荷的行为影响的直观论点不能经得起更仔细、更正式的检验,除非做出强有力的假设,而这些假设可能在典型的经济实验中成立,也可能不成立。然后,我们报告了使用不同认知负荷操作的七个经济实验(联合N = 628),并证实了该模型的含义。虽然对反应时间的影响是强烈而普遍的,但对行为的影响是微弱而难以捉摸的。我们的研究对经济任务和心理学实验之间的差异以及与不加批判地引进方法相关的困难提出了警告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shackle's Decision Order and Time: A Reader's Guide Myopia and Intertemporal Choice Nudging Timely Wage Reporting: Field Experimental Evidence from the United States Social Supplementary Income Program Cognitive Load in Economic Decisions Smoke on the Market: Inattentive Investors and the War in Ukraine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1