Vai trò của khả năng nhận thức và đặc điểm tính cách đối với nam và nữ trong kết quả đổi quà

Experimental Economics - Tập 21 - Trang 650-672 - 2016
Emel Filiz-Ozbay1, John C. Ham2, John H. Kagel3, Erkut Y. Ozbay1
1Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
2Department of Economics, IFAU, IRP and IZA, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
3Department of Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

Tóm tắt

Chúng tôi xem xét vai trò của khả năng nhận thức và các đặc điểm tính cách trong một thí nghiệm trao đổi quà. Kiểm soát khả năng nhận thức và các đặc điểm tính cách, nam giới đề nghị mức lương cao hơn phụ nữ, và nam nữ có khả năng nhận thức cao hơn và có tính cách dễ chịu hơn theo thang điểm Big Five cũng đề nghị mức lương cao hơn. Nam giới thể hiện sự nỗ lực lớn hơn so với phụ nữ, và phản ứng với mức lương cao hơn bằng những gia tăng nỗ lực lớn hơn. Đối với cả hai giới, việc tăng một độ lệch chuẩn trong tính cách dễ chịu và mức lương tạo ra những gia tăng tương tự trong nỗ lực. Những thiên lệch nghiêm trọng phát sinh từ việc bỏ qua khả năng nhận thức và gộp chung nam và nữ.

Từ khóa

#khả năng nhận thức #đặc điểm tính cách #thí nghiệm trao đổi quà #giới tính #mức lương #nỗ lực

Tài liệu tham khảo

Anderson, J., Burks, S., De Young, C., & Rustichini, A. (2012). Toward tyhe integration of personality thoery and decision theory in explanation of economic behavior. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Discussion paper 6750. Becker, A., Thomas,D., Thomas,D., Armin,F., and Fabian,K., 2012. “The Relationship between Economic Preferences and Psychological Personality Measures,” Working Paper, University of Bonn. Benjamin, D. (2015). Distributional preferences, reciprocity-like behavior, and efficiency in bilateral exchange. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7, 70–98. Ben-Ner, A, & Halldorsson, F. (2010). Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them and what affects them. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 64–79. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193. Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Weel, B. T. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 972–1059. Bors, D., & Vigneaub, F. (2001). The effect of practice on raven’s advanced progressive matrices. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 291–312. Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2004). Do labour market conditions affect gift exchange? some experimental evidence. Economic Journal, 114, 684–708. Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J., Götte, L., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, social awareness, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 7745–7750. Casari, M., Ham, J. H., & Kagel, J. H. (2007). Selection bias, demographic effects and ability effects in common value auction experiments. American Economic Review, 97, 1278–1304. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2016). Other-regarding preferences: A selective survey of experimental results. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2). Princeton University Press. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474. Davis, D., Ivenov, A., & Korenok, O. (2016). Individual characteristics and behavior in repeated games: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 16, 67–99. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100, 1238–1260. Durber, A., Fudenberg, D., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Who cooperates in repeated prisoner dilemma games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion and demographics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 98, 41–55. Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47, 268–298. Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., Pascu, I., & Cullen, M. R. (2012). How general are risk preferences? choices under uncertainty in different domains. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2606–2638. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. Gillen, B., Snowberg, E., & Yariv, L. (2015). Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the caltech cohort. California Institute of Technology: Mimeo. Ham, J. C., Kagel, J., & Lehrer, S. (2005). Randomization, endogeneity and laboratory experiments: The role of cash balances in private value auctions. Journal of Econometrics, 125, 175–205. Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–482. John, P. O., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, J. C. (2008). “Paradigm shift: To the integrative big five”. In O. P. John, R. W. Robbins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality, theory, and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press. Jones, Matthew T. 2012. “Strategic complexity and cooperation: An experimental study,” SSRN Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2025659. Kagel, J. H., Frechette, G., & Schotter, A. (2015). “Laboratory experiments: The lab in relationship to field experiments, field data, and economic theory” in methods of modern experimental economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kagel, J. H., & McGee, P. (2014). Personality and cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner dilemma games. Economic Letters, 124, 274–277. Kern, M., Duckworth, A., Urzua, S., Loeber, R., Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2013). Mind your manners! aspects of agreeableness and early adult outcomes for inner-city boys. Mimeo: University of Pennsylvania. Kruger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 596–610. Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2001). Individual differences in cooperation in a circular public goods game. European Journal of Personality, 15, 37–52. Lacetera, N., M. Macis, and R. Slonim, 2011. “Rewarding altruism: A natural field experiment.” NBER Working Paper 17636. Mellström, C., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Crowding out in blood donations: Was titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 845–863. Niederle, M. (2016). “Gender effects in economic experiments,”. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton university press. Pothos, E. M., Perry, G., Corr, P. J., Matthew, M. R., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Understanding cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 210–216. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. Schwieren, C. (2012). The gender wage gap in experimental labor markets. Economics Letters, 117(3), 592–595. Urzua, S., & Veramendi, G. (2012). Empirical strategies to identify the determinants and consequences of skills. Mimeo: University of Maryland.