Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocity in financial decision making: intuitive and analytical mind-reading strategies

  • Published:
International Review of Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In financial games requiring to take into account the reciprocal benefits, mind-reading—that is, trying to identify other people’s thoughts—is involved. Mind-reading may occur through either analytical or intuitive strategies. Two studies were carried out to deepen the role of analytical and intuitive modes of thinking in mind-reading in financial decision making. Employing the Ultimatum Game as a setting suitable for researching into these topics, we found that the sums of money offered by undergraduates were modulated depending both on the psychological portraits of the responders and on the two modes of thinking. Specifically we found that the sums of money the undergraduates offered varied consistently across the two studies according to specific responder’s psychological features such as honesty, sense of justice, personal dignity. As for the two modes of thinking, it turned out that in the intuitive task proposers offered larger amount of money than in the analytical task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnoli F (1991) Development of judgmental heuristics and logical reasoning: training counteracts the representativeness heuristic. Cogn Dev 6:195–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambady N, Krabbenhoft MA, Hogan D (2006) The 30-sec sale: using thin slice judgments to evaluate sales effectiveness. J Couns Psychol 16:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahry DL, Wilson RK (2006) Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method. J Econ Behav Organ 60:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh JA, Chartrand TL (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. Am Psychol 54:462–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein G, Yaniv I (1998) Individual and group behaviour in the ultimatum game: are groups more rational players? Exper Econ 1:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner J (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF (1997) Progress in behavioural game theory. J Econ Perspect 11:167–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF, Thaler R (1995) Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. J Econ Perspect 2:209–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91:280–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 49:709–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54:293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Gachter S (1999) Homo reciprocans and human cooperation. Discussion Paper, Institute for Empirical Economic Research, University of Zurich

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert DT (2002) Inferential correction. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 167–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3/4:367–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KR (1996) Human judgment and social policy: irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KR, Hamm RM, Grassia J, Pearson T (1987) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 17:753–770

    Google Scholar 

  • Harle K, Sanfey AG (2005) Influence and modulation effects of induced emotions on economic decisions. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Toronto, Canada

  • Haselhuhn MP, Mellers BA (2005) Emotions and cooperation in economic games. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 23:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman E, McCabe K, Smith V (1996) On expectation and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games. Int J Game Theory 25:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman E, McCabe K, Smith V (2000) The impact of exchange context on the activation of equity in ultimatum games. Exper Econ 3:5–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM (2001) Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM (2005) Deciding analytically or trusting intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In: Betsch T, Haberstroh S (eds) The routines of decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen AM, Nygre TE, Ashby FG (1988) Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: it is just no worth the risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:710–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice. Am Psychol 58:697–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knez MJ, Camerer C (2000) Increasing cooperation in prisoner’s dilemmas by establishing a precedent of efficiency in coordination games. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 8:194–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki P (1986) Nonconscious social information processing. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman MD (2000) Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychol Bull 126:109–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMackin J, Slovic P (2000) When does explicit justification impair decision making? Appl Cogn Psychol 14:527–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochsner KN, Lieberman MD (2001) The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. Am Psychol 56:717–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterbeek H, Sloof R, Van de Kuilen G (2004) Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Exper Econ 7:171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rilling JK, Sanfey AG¸ Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2004) The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. Neuroimage 22:1694–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth AE, Prasnikar V, Okuno-Fujiwara M, Zamir S (1991) Bargaining and market behaviour in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 81:1068–1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Sally D, Hill E (2006) The development of interpersonal strategy: autism, theory of mind, cooperation and fairness. J Econ Psychol 27:73–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aaronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300:1755–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir E, LeBoeuf RA (2002) Rationality. Annu Rev Psychol 53:419–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119:3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, West RF (2002) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci 23:645–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suri R, Monroe KB (2003) The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of prices and products. J Consum Res 30:92–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90:293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD, Lisle DJ, Schooler JW, Hodges SD, Klaaren KJ, LaFleur SJ (1993) Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Person Soc Psychol Bull 19(3):331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy

    Paola Iannello & Alessandro Antonietti

Authors
  1. Paola Iannello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Antonietti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paola Iannello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iannello, P., Antonietti, A. Reciprocity in financial decision making: intuitive and analytical mind-reading strategies. Int. Rev. Econ. 55, 167–184 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-007-0031-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-007-0031-4

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation