Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities and cognitive load

Drichoutis, Andreas and Nayga, Rodolfo (2019): Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities and cognitive load.

Abstract

This study further examines the failure of game form recognition in preference elicitation (Cason and Plott, 2014) by making elicitation more cognitively demanding through a cognitive load manipulation. We hypothesized that if subjects misperceive one game for another game, then by depleting their cognitive resources, subjects would misconceive the more-cognitively demanding task for the less-cognitively demanding task at a higher rate. We find no evidence that subjects suffer from a first-price-auction game-form misconception but rather that once cognitive resources are depleted, subjects' choices are better explained by random choice. More cognitively able subjects are more immune to deviations from sub-optimal play than lower cognitively able subjects.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Game form recognition; game form misconception; Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism; first price auction; preference elicitation; cognitive load; cognitive resources; Raven test; fluid intelligence
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology ; Computer Programs > C80 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D44 - Auctions

References

Banerji, A. and N. Gupta (2014). Detection, identification, and estimation of loss aversion: Evidence from an auction experiment. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 6 (1), 91-133.

Becker, G. M., M. H. Degroot, and J. Marschak (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9 (3), 226-232.

Benjamin, D. J., S. A. Brown, and J. M. Shapiro (2013). Who is `behavioral'? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association 11 (6), 1231-1255.

Bigler, J. (2019, May 10). An update on first price auctions for Google Ad Manager. Available at https://perma.cc/U3ZC-NY79. Last accessed on November 15, 2019.

Branas Garza, P. and J. Smith (2016). Cognitive abilities and economic behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 64, 1-4.

Briz, T., A. C. Drichoutis, and R. M. Nayga Jr (2017). Randomization to treatment failure in experimental auctions: The value of data from training rounds. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 71, 56-66.

Bull, C., P. Courty, M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau (2019). Failure of the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 159, 235-253.

Busemeyer, J. R. and J. T. Townsend (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences 23 (3), 255-282.

Busemeyer, J. R. and J. T. Townsend (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review 100 (3), 432-459.

Cason, T. N. and C. R. Plott (2014). Misconceptions and game form recognition: Challenges to theories of revealed preference and framing. Journal of Political Economy 122 (6), 1235-1270.

Choi, S., S. Kariv, W. Muller, and D. Silverman (2014). Who is (more) rational? American Economic Review 104 (6), 1518-50.

Clarke, K. A. (2003). Nonparametric model discrimination in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (1), 72-93.

Cochran, W. G. and D. B. Rubin (1973). Controlling bias in observational studies: A review. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A 35 (4), 417-446.

Colom, R., I. Rebollo, A. Palacios, M. Juan-Espinosa, and P. C. Kyllonen (2004). Working memory is (almost) perfectly predicted by g. Intelligence 32 (3), 277-296.

Deaton, A. and N. Cartwright (2016). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 22595.

Deck, C. and S. Jahedi (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review 78, 97-119.

Diggle, P. J., P. Heagerty, K.-Y. Liang, and S. L. Zeger (2002). Analysis of Longitudinal Data (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc.

Drichoutis, A. C. and J. L. Lusk (2014). Judging statistical models of individual decision making under risk using in- and out-of-sample criteria. PLoS ONE 9 (7), e102269.

Drichoutis, A. C. and J. L. Lusk (2016). What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 53 (2), 89-106.

Drichoutis, A. C. and J. Nayga, Rodolfo M. (2017). Economic rationality under cognitive load. Munich Personal RePEc Archive No. 81735.

Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80 (1), 27-38.

Furnham, A. and H. C. Boo (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40 (1), 35-42.

Gerhardt, H., G. P. Biele, H. R. Heekeren, and H. Uhlig (2016). Cognitive load increases risk aversion. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2016-011.

Gray, J. R., C. F. Chabris, and T. S. Braver (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience 6 (3), 316-322.

Gray, J. R. and P. M. Thompson (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5 (6), 471-482.

Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association 1 (1), 114-125.

Hassidim, A., D. Marciano, A. Romm, and R. I. Shorrer (2017). The mechanism is truthful, why aren't you? American Economic Review 107 (5), 220-24.

Hey, J. D., G. Lotito, and A. Maffioletti (2010). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41 (2), 81-111.

Ho, D. E., K. Imai, G. King, and E. A. Stuart (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 15 (3), 199-236.

Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review 92 (5), 1644-1655.

Horowitz, J. K. (2006). The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods. Economics Letters 93 (1), 6-11.

Imbens, G. W. and D. B. Rubin (2016). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences, An introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Imbens, G. W. and J. M. Wooldridge (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47 (1), 5-86.

Karni, E. and Z. Safra (1987). "reference reversal" and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica 55 (3), 675-685.

Kechagia, V. and A. C. Drichoutis (2017). The effect of olfactory sensory cues on willingness to pay and choice under risk. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 70, 33-46.

King, G. and L. Zeng (2017). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9 (2), 137-163.

Kupper, L. L. and K. B. Hafner (1989). How appropriate are popular sample size formulas? The American Statistician 43 (2), 101-105.

Lee, J. Y., R. M. J. Nayga, C. Deck, and A. C. Drichoutis (2017). Cognitive ability and bidding behavior in second price auctions: An experimental study. Munich Personal RePEc Archive No. 81495.

Li, S. (2017). Obviously strategy-proof mechanisms. American Economic Review 107 (11), 3257-3287.

Liu, H. and T. Wu (2005). Sample size calculation and power analysis of time-averaged difference. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 4 (2), 434-445.

Mazar, N., B. Koszegi, and D. Ariely (2013). True context-dependent preferences? The causes of market-dependent valuations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

Moher, D., S. Hopewell, K. F. Schulz, V. Montori, P. C. Gotzsche, P. J. Devereaux, D. Elbourne, M. Egger, and D. G. Altman (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340.

Mutz, D. C. and R. Pemantle (2015). Standards for experimental research: Encouraging a better understanding of experimental methods. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2), 192-215.

Norwood, B. F., M. C. Roberts, and J. L. Lusk (2004). Ranking crop yield models using out-of-sample likelihood functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (4), 1032-1043.

Olschewski, S., J. Rieskamp, and B. Scheibehenne (2018). Taxing cognitive capacities reduces choice consistency rather than preference: A model-based test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147 (4), 462-484.

Rosato, A. and A. A. Tymula (2016). Loss aversion and competition in Vickrey auctions: Money ain't no good. The University of Sydney, Economics Working Paper Series 2016 - 09.

Rustichini, A. (2015). The role of intelligence in economic decision making. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 5, 32-36.

StataCorp (2013). Stata user's guide release 13. College Station, Texas, USA: Stata Press.

Urbancic, M. (2011). Testing distributional dependence in the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism. Working paper, UC Berkeley.

Vassilopoulos, A., A. C. Drichoutis, and R. M. Nayga Jr (2018). Loss aversion, expectations and anchoring in the BDM mechanism. Munich Personal RePEc Archive No. 85635.

Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57 (2), 307-333.

Wilcox, N. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In J. C. Cox and G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Research in Experimental Economics Vol 12: Risk Aversion in Experiments, pp. 197-292. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Wilcox, N. (2015). Error and generalization in discrete choice under risk. Economic Science Institute (Chapman University) Working paper.

Wilcox, N. T. (2011). `Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics 162 (1), 89-104.