Conveniently Dependent or Naively Overconfident? An Experimental Study on the Reaction to External Help.

Zhang, Yinjunjie and Xu, Zhicheng and Palma, Marco (2018): Conveniently Dependent or Naively Overconfident? An Experimental Study on the Reaction to External Help. Published in: Plos One , Vol. 14, No. 5 (May 2019)

Abstract

The rapid development and diffusion of new technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence make life more convenient. At the same time, people may develop overdependence on technology to simplify everyday tasks or to reduce the level of effort required to accomplish them. We conduct a two-phase real-effort laboratory experiment to assess how external assistance affects subsequently revealed preferences for the convenience of a lower level of effort versus monetary rewards requiring greater effort. The results suggest that men treated with external help in the first phase tend to choose more difficult options with potentially higher monetary rewards. In contrast, after being treated with external help, women exhibit a stronger propensity to utilize the convenience of an easier task and are less likely to choose a more difficult option that carries higher potential earnings.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Gender difference, Reaction to help, Real effort
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J1 - Demographic Economics > J16 - Economics of Gender ; Non-labor Discrimination

References

1. Deursen AJAMV, Bolle CL, Hegner SM, Kommers PAM. Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 45(Supplement C):411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039

2. Lei J, Zhao Y. One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2008; 39(2):97–122. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.2.a

3. Ellington A. A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students’ achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2003; p. 433–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034795

4. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal. 1990; 100(401):464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133

5. Andreoni J. Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy. 1989; 97(6):1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.1086/261662

6. Andreoni J. Toward a theory of charitable fund-raising. Journal of Political Economy. 1998; 106 (6):1186–1213. https://doi.org/10.1086/250044

7. DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U. Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2012; 127(1):1–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr050 PMID: 22448394

8. Ottoni-Wilhelm M, Vesterlund L, Xie H. Why do people give? Testing pure and impure altruism. American Economic Review. 2017; 107(11):3617–33. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141222

9. Holt CA, Laury SK. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review. 2002; 92 (5):1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700

10. Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutstro¨m EE. Elicitation Using Multiple Price List Formats. Experimental Economics. 2006; 9(4):383–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6

11. Fisher JD, Nadler A, Whitcher-Alagna S. Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin. 1982; 91 (1):27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.27

12. Nadler A, Jeffrey D. The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1986; 19:81–122.

13. Fisher JD, Nadler A. The Effect of Similarity Between Donor and Recipient on Recipient’s Reactions to Aid1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1974; 4(3):230–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816. 1974.tb02643.x

14. Nadler A, Fisher JD, Streufert S. When helping hurts: Effects of donor-recipient similarity and recipient self-esteem on reactions to aid1. Journal of Personality. 1976; 44(3):392–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00129.x PMID: 972347

15. Nadler A, Altman A, Fisher JD. Helping is not enough: Recipient’s reactions to aid as a function of positive and negative information about the self. Journal of Personality. 1979; 47(4):615–628. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979.tb00212.x

16. DePaulo BM, Brown PL, Ishii S, Fisher JD. Help that works: The effects of aid on subsequent task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981; 41(3):478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.478

17. Daubman KA, Lehman TC. The effects of receiving help: Gender differences in motivation and performance. Sex Roles. 1993; 28(11-12):693–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289988

18. Brandts J, Groenert V, Rott C. The impact of advice on women’s and men’s selection into competition. Management Science. 2014; 61(5):1018–1035. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1877

19. Heikensten E, Isaksson S. Simon Says: Examining gender differences in advice seeking and influence in the lab; 2018.

20. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2008; 68(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.006

21. Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009; 47 (2):448–474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448

22. Niederle M, Vesterlund L. Gender and Competition. Annual Review of Economics. 2011; 3(1):601–630. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-111809-125122

23. Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L. Taste for competition and the gender gap among young business professionals. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2015.

24. Buser T, Peter N, Wolter SC. Gender, competitiveness, and study choices in high school: Evidence from Switzerland. American economic review. 2017; 107(5):125–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer. p20171017

25. Van Veldhuizen R. Gender differences in tournament choices: Risk preferences, overconfidence or competitiveness? Discussion Paper; 2017.

26. Niederle M, Vesterlund L. Do Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2007; 122(3):1067–1101. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3. 1067

27. Wieland A, Sarin R. Domain specificity of sex differences in competition. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2012; 83(1):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.019

28. Buser T, Niederle M, Oosterbeek H. Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2014; 129(3):1409–1447. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju009

29. Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A. Performance in CompetitiveEnvironments: Gender Differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003; 118(3):1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360698496

30. Gneezy U, Rustichini A. Gender and Competition at a Young Age. American Economic Review. 2004; 94(2):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041301821

31. Schwalbe ML, Staples CL. Gender Differences in Sources of Self-Esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1991; 54(2):158–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786933

32. Josephs RA, Markus HR, Tafarodi RW. Gender and Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992; 63(3):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.391 PMID: 1403622

33. Crocker J, Luhtanen RK, Cooper ML, Bouvrette A. Contingencies of Self-Worth in College Students: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85(5):894–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894 PMID: 14599252

34. Gu¨nther C, Ekinci NA, Schwieren C, Strobel M. Women Can’t Jump? An Experiment on Competitive Attitudes and Stereotype Threat. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2010; 75(3):395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.003

35. Dreber A, von Essen E, Ranehill E. Outrunning the gender gap—boys and girls compete equally. Experimental Economics. 2011; 14(4):567–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9282-8

36. Shurchkov O. Under Pressure: Gender Differences in Output Quality and Quantity under Competition and Time Constraints. Journal of the European Economic Association. 2012; 10(5):1189–1213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01084.x

37. Gupta ND, Poulsen A, Villeval MC. Gender Matching And Competitiveness: Experimental Evidence. Economic Inquiry. 2013; 51(1):816–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00378.x

38. Iriberri N, Rey-Biel P. Stereotypes Are Only a Threat When Beliefs Are Reinforced: On the Sensitivity of Gender Differences in Performance under Competition to Information Provision. Barcelona GSE Working Paper: 880. 2016;.

39. Gneezy U, Leonard K, List J. Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. Econometrica. 2009; 77(5):1637–1664. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6690

40. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review. 2018; 108(6):1488–1542. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160696

41. Graetz G, Michaels G. Robots at Work. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2018; 100(5):753–768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754

42. Fischbacher U. Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments. Experimental Economics. 2007; 10(2):171–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4