Econographics

We study the pattern of correlations across a large number of behavioral regularities, with the goal of creating an empirical basis for more comprehensive theories of decision-making. We elicit 21 behaviors using an incentivized survey on a representative sample (n = 1;000) of the U.S. population. Our data show a clear and relatively simple structure underlying the correlations between these measures. Using principal components analysis, we reduce the 21 variables to six components corresponding to clear clusters of high correlations. We examine the relationship between these components, cognitive ability, and demographics, and discuss the theoretical implications of the structure we uncover.

[1]  Yoram Halevy,et al.  Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists , 2019, Quantitative Economics.

[2]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study , 2015, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Christopher P. Chambers,et al.  Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis , 2018, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Uwe Sunde,et al.  On the Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference. , 2018, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[5]  Jonathan Zinman,et al.  Quicksand or Bedrock for Behavioral Economics? Assessing Foundational Empirical Questions , 2017 .

[6]  Mark Dean,et al.  Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept are Probably Less Correlated Than You Think∗ , 2018 .

[7]  Jonathan Zinman,et al.  The Quest for Parsimony in Behavioral Economics: New Methods and Evidence on Three Fronts , 2017 .

[8]  J. Tyran,et al.  Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Preferences or Noise? , 2016 .

[9]  Charles Sprenger,et al.  An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points , 2015, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  E. Snowberg,et al.  Are conservatives overconfident , 2015 .

[11]  M. Dean,et al.  Is it All Connected? A Testing Ground for Unified Theories of Behavioral Economics Phenomena , 2015 .

[12]  Mohammed Abdellaoui,et al.  Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[13]  David Laibson,et al.  Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better Than Delay Discounting Does , 2015, Psychological science.

[14]  R. Kerschbamer,et al.  The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test , 2013, European economic review.

[15]  Timothy N. Cason,et al.  Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing , 2014, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  William Revelle,et al.  The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure , 2014 .

[17]  Jesse M. Shapiro,et al.  WHO IS 'BEHAVIORAL'? COGNITIVE ABILITY AND ANOMALOUS PREFERENCES. , 2013, Journal of the European Economic Association.

[18]  E. Snowberg,et al.  Overconfidence in Political Behavior , 2013 .

[19]  Muriel Niederle,et al.  Working Over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks , 2013 .

[20]  J. Andreoni,et al.  Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences , 2012 .

[21]  Adrian Bruhin,et al.  Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting , 2010 .

[22]  Burkhard C. Schipper,et al.  The visible hand: finger ratio (2D:4D) and competitive bidding , 2011, Experimental Economics.

[23]  I. Gilboa,et al.  Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Ambiguity and the Bayesian Paradigm , 2011 .

[24]  Charles Sprenger,et al.  Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets , 2010 .

[25]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Decisions Under Uncertainty: Psychological, Economic, and Neuroeconomic Explanations of Risk Preference , 2009 .

[26]  M. Okamura,et al.  Non-expected utility maximizers behave as if expected utility maximizers: An experimental test , 2009 .

[27]  Aldo Rustichini,et al.  Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Michèle Cohen,et al.  An experimental investigation of imprecision attitude and its relation with risk attitude and impatience , 2009 .

[29]  Syngjoo Choi,et al.  Estimating Ambiguity Aversion in a Portfolio Choice Experiment , 2009 .

[30]  A. van Soest,et al.  Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behaviour in a Broad Population , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[31]  Heng Tao Shen,et al.  Principal Component Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[32]  S. Chakravarty,et al.  Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study , 2009 .

[33]  D. Moore,et al.  The trouble with overconfidence. , 2008, Psychological review.

[34]  Hawaii,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S6 Tables S1 and S2 Database S1 Antisocial Punishment across Societies , 2022 .

[35]  A. Falk,et al.  Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability? , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[36]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[37]  R. Aumann,et al.  Unraveling in Guessing Games : An Experimental Study , 2007 .

[38]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences , 2008 .

[39]  Laura Schechter,et al.  Traditional Trust Measurement and the Risk Confound: An Experiment in Rural Paraguay , 2007 .

[40]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[41]  J. Hey,et al.  Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)? , 2005 .

[42]  Yoram Halevy.  Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study , 2005 .

[43]  C. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2005 .

[44]  M. Rabin,et al.  A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences , 2006 .

[45]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Is Trust a Risky Decision? , 2004 .

[46]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Third Party Punishment and Social Norms , 2004 .

[47]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[48]  M. Rabin,et al.  UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PREFERENCES WITH SIMPLE TESTS , 2001 .

[49]  Fredrik Carlsson,et al.  Are People Inequality-Averse, or Just Risk-Averse? , 2001 .

[50]  I. Levin,et al.  Relating individual differences in attitude toward ambiguity to risky choices , 2001 .

[51]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition , 2000 .

[52]  E. Fehr.  A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[53]  Robin P. Cubitt,et al.  On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System , 1998 .

[54]  G. Loomes,et al.  The Impact of Incentives Upon Risky Choice Experiments , 1997 .

[55]  Joyce E. Berg,et al.  Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History , 1995 .

[56]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[57]  M. Rabin.  Published by: American , 2022 .

[58]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[59]  Uzi Segal,et al.  Two Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom , 1990 .

[60]  Edi Karni,et al.  Preference reversal and the observability of preferences by experimental methods , 1987 .

[61]  D. Ellsberg.  Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[62]  O. J. Dunn.  Estimation of the Means of Dependent Variables , 1958 .

[63]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[64]  K. Arrow.  Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations , 1951 .