Not All Income is the Same to Everyone: Cognitive Ability and the House Money Effect in Public Goods Games

Hackinger, Julian (2016): Not All Income is the Same to Everyone: Cognitive Ability and the House Money Effect in Public Goods Games.

Abstract

The provision of public goods often suffers from a social dilemma generating too little contributions. Yet, it remains an open question how positive contributions materialise. Existing studies suggest that individuals' decisions on how much to contribute depend on cognitive skills. Furthermore, mental accounting research indicates that the source of income matters for economic decision making. I show experimentally that subjects' contributions in a one-shot linear public goods game depend on an interplay of the two factors. While a house money effect exists for subjects with low cognitive skills there is no such effect for those with high cognitive skills. My findings have important implications for taxation, redistribution, and voting behaviour, as well as past and future experiments.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Public Goods; Experiment; Cognitive Skills; House Money Effect; Mental Accounting; Endowment Source
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods

References

Abeler, J. and Marklein, F. (forthcoming), `Fungibility, labels, and consumption', Journal of the European Economic Association.

Andreoni, J. and Petrie, R. (2004), `Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising', Journal of Public Economics 88(7-8), 1605-1623.

Antinyan, A., Corazzini, L. and Neururer, D. (2015), `Public good provision, punishment, and the endowment origin: Experimental evidence', Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 56, 72-77.

Carlsson, F., He, H. and Martinsson, P. (2013), `Easy come, easy go', Experimental Economics 16(2), 190-207.

Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P. and Shogren, J. F. (2002), `Hardnose the dictator', American Economic Review 92(4), 1218-1221.

Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S. and Shogren, J. F. (2005), `The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab', Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 57(3), 357-365.

Clark, J. (2002), `House money effects in public good experiments', Experimental Economics 5(3), 223-231.

Dannenberg, A., Riechmann, T., Sturm, B. and Vogt, C. (2012), `Inequality aversion and the house of money effect', Experimental Economics 15(3), 460-484.

Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D. and Sunde, U. (2010), `Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability?', American Economic Review 100(3), 1238-1260.

Frederick, S. (2005), `Cognitive reflection and decision making', Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4), 25-42.

Harrison, G. W. (2007), `House money effects in public good experiments: Comment', Experimental Economics 10(4), 429-437.

Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A. and Smith, V. L. (1996), `Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games', American Economic Review 86(3), 653-660.

Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M. L. (1985), `Entitlements, rights, and fairness: An experimental examination of subjects' concepts of distributive justice', Journal of Legal Studies 14(2), 259-297.

Houser, D. and Xiao, E. (2015), `House money effects on trust and reciprocity', Public Choice 163(1-2), 187-199.

Kanazawa, S. and Fontaine, L. (2013), `Intelligent people defect more in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma game', Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 6(3), 201-213.

Lohse, J. (forthcoming), `Smart or selfish - when smart guys finish nice', Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics.

Muehlbacher, S. and Kirchler, E. (2009), `Origin of endowments in public good games: The impact of effort on contributions', Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 2(1), 59-67.

Nielsen, U. H., Tyran, J.-R. and Wengstrom, E. (2014), `Second thoughts on free riding', Economics Letters 122(2), 136-139.

Oxoby, R. J. and Spraggon, J. (2008), `Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games', Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 65(3-4), 703-713.

Pennisi, E. (2005), `How did cooperative behavior evolve?', Science 309(5731), 93.

Reinstein, D. and Riener, G. (2012), `Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment', Experimental Economics 15(1), 229-240.

Spraggon, J. and Oxoby, R. J. (2009), `An experimental investigation of endowment source heterogeneity in two-person public good games', Economics Letters 104(2), 102-105.

Thaler, R. (1985), `Mental accounting and consumer choice', Marketing Science 4(3), 199-214.

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. and Stanovich, K. E. (2011), `The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks', Memory & Cognition 39(7), 1275-1289.

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. and Stanovich, K. E. (2014), `Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test', Thinking & Reasoning 20(2), 147-168.

Zelmer, J. (2003), `Linear public goods experiments: A meta-analysis', Experimental Economics 6(3), 299-310.