...the willingness to put mental effort in answering difficult questions in the absence of extrinsic rewards. A relationship between noncognitive skills and cognitive test scores can exist for two reasons. First, people who are motivated to perform well and who have a positive attitude toward work might be more inclined to do their best at tests, irrespective of the rewards offered. If so, high IQ scores might partly reflect favorable noncognitive skills, and correlations between cognitive skills and outcomes are upward biased. Second, people with favorable behavioral or labor-market outcomes might have an attitude to put in effort only when there are sufficient rewards. This could serve as an explanation for a successful career, despite lower cognitive test scores at school.

To investigate the relationship between noncognitive skills and cognitive test scores, we performed an experiment in which we first measured psychological traits and economic preference parameters of 128 students. Next, these students carried out a cognitive test. Initially, there were no rewards for right answers, but later on, we introduced payments for right answers. To disentangle the effect of increased mental effort from increased time investments, we also varied the time available for each question. To investigate whether our results are affected by heterogeneity in the marginal value of time, we ended the experiment by measuring the marginal price for the willingness to spend time doing nothing.

We find that students put substantially more time in answering IQ questions when rewards are higher. The effect of extra time investments on test scores is less obvious and depends on the type and difficulty of the IQ question. When time constraints are very binding, the effects disappear, suggesting that people cannot increase mental effort as a substitute for investing more time. We find several personality traits for which the effect of rewards on the time spent to answer a question is significantly smaller than average: performance motivation, internal locus of control, and curiosity. Also, components from the 5-factor model of personality structure, such as emotional stability and conscientiousness, are associated with a low effect of rewards on extra time investments. Students with a high preference for leisure (measured by psychological tests) and a negative fear of failure increase their efforts to answer questions more than average when rewards go up. This also holds for the component measuring openness to new experiences from the 5-factor model of personality structure.

For the economic preference parameters, we find the opposite result. Students with high discount rates, high risk aversion, and a high preference for leisure (measured by questions in which the respondent has to trade-off time and money) tend to decrease time spent on an IQ question more than others, when rewards are increased. Again, the incentives do not always increase performance. Since in general, low discount rates and low levels of risk aversion are also associated with favorable behavioral or labor-market outcomes, this is surprising. A potential explanation is that economic preference parameters are measured by questions about economic trade-offs. Possibly, people differ in their ability to deal with such trade-offs, explaining why the psychological measures might pick up other aspects of noncognitive skills than the economics preference parameters.

II. EXPERIMENT

A. Design

We conducted an experiment with different time constraints and financial incentives on IQ questions to examine the influence of different preferences and types on the performance in this cognitive test. One hundred and twenty-eight subjects participated in the experiment. They were all Dutch students from Maastricht University, and the experiment was conducted in Dutch. The experiment was conducted in four stages. The instructions and set-up of the experiment are explained in more detail in Borghans, Meijers, and Ter Weel (2006a).

B. Personality

In the first stage, subjects were giving answers to statements to determine psychological traits and were asked to make trade-offs to determine relevant economic preference parameters. We selected ten psychological traits that appear to be potentially relevant for the decision to put effort in a test, regardless of the reward. In psychology, there is a long tradition to search for traits explaining differences in the tendency to perform well. Following the work of Atkinson and Reitman (1958), Edwards (1959), Hermans (1975) developed Dutch tests for this purpose, which are still considered as the norm in the field. We applied shortened versions of Hermans' test of performance motivation, preference for leisure, positive fear of failure, and negative fear of failure. We added tests for internal locus of control and social desirability (Rotter scale), enjoyment of success (Steers and Black 1994), and resilience (Siebert 1993) because the attitude to relate success and failure to one's own performance and to stay motivated after failure are generally regarded as important elements for success. We also added a test for curiosity (Steers and Black 1994) because curious people might have more fun solving questions in cognitive tests. The attitude toward work from the World Value Study has been added since this test is available for a wide variety of countries. In all tests, respondents had to answer on a 5-point scale to what extent statements hold for them. We checked for the reliability of the statements included using Cronbach's alpha. Average normalized scores (reversing scores on negative statements) are used as measures in our analyses. (1)

We also included items from the 5-factor model of personality structure ("big five"), measuring emotional stability, introversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Here, respondents have to characterize themselves on a 5-point scale between two extreme characterizations. The 5-factor model of personality structure described by Goldberg (1990) is introduced as an attempt to summarize the wide spectrum of psychological traits that matter for behavior (e.g., Allport and Odbert 1936)....

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Economic Inquiry
Unpacking social interactions., January 01, 2008
Understanding regression versus variance tests for social interactions..., January 01, 2008
Behavioral economics and drinking behavior: preliminary results from a..., January 01, 2008
An assessment of causal inference in smoking initiation research and a..., January 01, 2008
Risk beliefs and smoking behavior., January 01, 2008

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.