Citation

Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U. J. Econ. Perspect. 2018; 32(2): 115-134.

Affiliation

University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, American Economic Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

30203932

Abstract

Many decisions of individuals involve a combination of internal preferences and mental processes related to cognitive ability. As Frederick (2005) argued in this journal, "there is no good reason for ignoring the possibility that general intelligence or various more specific cognitive abilities are important causal determinants of decision making." Since then, a number of empirical studies have focused on the relationship between cognitive ability and decision-making in different contexts. This paper will focus on the relationship between cognitive ability and decision-making under risk and uncertainty. Taken as a whole, this research indicates that cognitive ability is associated with risk-taking behavior in various contexts and life domains, including incentivized choices between lotteries in controlled environments, behavior in nonexperimental settings, and self-reported tendency to take risks. We begin by clarifying some important distinctions between concepts and measurement of risk preference and cognitive ability. In particular, complexity and possible confusions arise because observed measures of risk preference and cognitive ability are used to represent the latent characteristics of these concepts. We discuss the substantial (and somewhat implausible) range of assumptions that need to be satisfied in order to be able to interpret a correlation between measures of risk preference and cognitive ability as a relationship between latent risk preference and latent cognitive ability. Drawing causal inferences from such relationships raises additional challenges. We go on to argue that it is nevertheless important and valuable to study whether cognitive ability is related to measured risk preference (see also Dohmen, Falk, Huffman, and Sunde 2010). Risk preference is typically measured by risky behavior (actual or self-reported). If risky behavior varies systematically with cognitive ability, this may reinforce or counteract the impact of cognitive ability on life outcomes, depending on the nature of the correlation. If there is a relationship, it also becomes important to control for cognitive ability when relating life outcomes to standard revealed preference measures of risk preference. If cognitive ability has a causal impact on measured risk preference, it is important to understand the mechanism, and some intriguing policy implications arise. We then take stock of what is known empirically on the connections between cognitive ability and measured risk preferences, looking at studies using real-world risky behavior, experimental measures of risky choice, and self-reported measures of willingness to take risks. One pattern that emerges frequently in these studies is that cognitive ability tends to be positively correlated with avoidance of harmful risky situations, but it tends to be negatively correlated with risk aversion in advantageous situations. This suggests that the relationship between cognitive ability and risk taking has a reinforcing effect on economic outcomes. There is also intriguing emerging evidence that measured risk preference is particularly strongly related to certain facets of cognitive ability, those that facilitate quantitative problem solving, with implications for understanding mechanisms and possibly for better targeting policy interventions. We conclude by discussing perspectives for future research, in particular the scope for the development of richer sets of elicitation instruments and measurement across a wider range of concepts. We also consider progress in neuroscience, but conclude that at present that field still seems relatively far from allowing definitive conclusions about latent risk preference and cognitive ability. Nevertheless, the existing empirical evidence suggests that interventions to influence cognitive ability, should they be possible, might have spillovers on risky choice.

Language: en