Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2017.27.1.59

Are Academically Gifted Kids More Cooperative? An Analysis of Social Preference and Interactions in Social Dilemma Situations Among Academically Gifted Kids  

Kim, Nayoung (Yangchung Middle School)
Choi, Minsik (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of Gifted/Talented Education / v.27, no.1, 2017 , pp. 59-80 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we investigate social preference of gifted students by analyzing their behaviors in social dilemma situations. We conducted an experimental study using ultimatum games and public goods games with 132 academically gifted middle school students who attended the Ewha-Seodaemun Center for gifted education from 2012 to 2016. We also experimented the same games with 87 regular students for comparative analysis. The result of ultimatum game experiment shows that there is no statistical difference in the proposed share of both groups. Their proposed share ranges from 37% to 38% as expected in other similar studies. However, the rejection rate of the respondents to the proposals with small share are significantly higher among gifted students than among their regular counterparts. This result implies that the gifted students show stronger negative reciprocity, meaning that they tend to punish selfish behaviors even when it takes some costs. In finitely repeated public goods game experiments, the results show that both groups' contribution rates decrease toward the end of the experiments. However, the gifted students show strategic cooperation by attempting to increase the other members' contribution rate within an experimental group. This implies that gifted students tend to care more about how to increase their own expected rewards by reciprocating other students' behaviors.
Keywords
Social preference; Public goods game; Ultimatum game; Social dilemma; Gifted education;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 교육부 (2015). 2015개정 교육과정 총론. 교육부.
2 김나영, 최민식 (2010). 연령이 높아짐에 따라 사회적 선호가 증가하는가. 사회경제평론, 35, 339-367.
3 김미숙, 윤초희, 조석희 (2005). 우리나라 중학생 영재의 지적 정의적 특성: 일반학생과의 비교 및 학생과 성별분석. 아시아교육연구, 6(3), 25-58.
4 노들 (2014). 대학수월성 교육의 활성화 방안 연구. 특수영재교육저널, 1(1), 115-128.
5 박종필 (2005). 수월성교육정책의 문제와 발전방향 탐색: 수월성 개념을 중심으로. 열린교육연구, 13(3), 29-46.
6 박춘성, 이정규 (2009) 영재학생의 가정환경 영향력 분석: 초등 영재학습을 중심으로. 아동 교육, 18(1), 131-142.
7 유영국 (2004). 영재교육진흥법률(안)에 대한 검토: 한국교육개발원, 영재교육진흥법, 무엇이 문제인가. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
8 이영한, 유미현 (2012). 중학교 과학영재 학생과 일반학생의 리더십 특성, 정서지능 비교 및 정서 지능이 리더십에 미치는 영향. 영재교육연구, 22(4), 943-966.   DOI
9 이정희 (2004). 과학영재아들의 정의적 특성 및 영재성 발달에 관한 연구. 한국과학교육학회 학술 발표 및 세미나집, 2004(1), 136
10 조선미, 한기순 (2014). 비인지적 영역 영재교육 효과성에 관한 메타분석. 영재교육연구, 24(1), 45-61.   DOI
11 최정규 (2009). 이타적 인간의 출현(2판). 서울: 도서출판 뿌리와 이파리.
12 최정규, 허준석 (2012). 공공재 게임 실험에서 기여율의 하락: 학습 가설, 전략 가설. 상호적 맞대응 가설의 재평가, 계량경제학보, 23(2), 1229-2893.
13 Andreoni, J. (1988). Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 37(3), 63-65.   DOI
14 Bernanke, B. S., & Frank, R. (2007). 경제학(3판) [곽노선, 왕규호, 역]. 서울: 한국맥그로힐. (원본출 간년도: 1994).
15 Bowles, S., Edwards, R., Roosevelt, F. (2009). 자본주의 이해하기 [최정규, 최민식, 이강국, 역]. 서울: 후마니타스. (원본출간년도: 2005).
16 Cameron, L. (1999). Raising the stakes in ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37(1), 47-59.   DOI
17 Carpenter, J. (2006). Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision public goods. Games and Economic Behavior, 60(1), 31-51.   DOI
18 Carpenter, J., Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Hwang, S. (2009). Strong reciprocity and team production: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71(2), 221-232.   DOI
19 Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20 Elsner, W., Heinrich, T., & Schwardt, H. (2015). The Microeconomics of Complex Economies: Evolutionary, Institutional, Neoclassical, and Complexity Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21 Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry, 41(1), 687-724.
22 Fan, C. P. (2000). Teaching children cooperation: An application of experimental game theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 41(3), 191-209.   DOI
23 Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter-the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. The Economic Journal, 112(478), 1-33.   DOI
24 Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63-87.   DOI
25 Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z_tree: Zurich Toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171-178.   DOI
26 Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000a). Fairness and retaliation: the economic of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-181.   DOI
27 Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000b). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980-994.   DOI
28 Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annual reviews of sociology 33(3), 1-22.   DOI
29 Fischbacher, U., Gachter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economic Letters, 71(3), 397-404.   DOI
30 Gardner, J. W. (1961). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellence too? NY: Harper Colophon Book.
31 Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(1), 153-157.   DOI
32 Gross, M. U. M. (1993) Nurturing the talents of exceptionally gifted individuals. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 473-490). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
33 Isaac, R., McCue, K. F., & Plott, C. R., (1985). Public goods provision in an experimental environment. Journal of Public Economics, 26(1), 51-74.   DOI
34 Joyce, V. T. (1997). Excellence an standard for all education. Roeper Review, 20(1), 9-12.   DOI
35 Karnes, F. A., & Brown, K. E. (1980). Moral development and the gifted: An initial investigation. Roeper Review, 3(4), 8-10.   DOI
36 Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2008) Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education (NBER Working Paper No. 14277). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
37 Kreps, D., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., & Wilson, R. (1982). Rational cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemmas. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2), 245-252.   DOI
38 Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2011). Mechanism and impacts of gender peer effects at school. America Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(2).1-33.
39 Marwell, G., & Ames, R. (1981). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillian.
40 Richerson, P., & Boyd, R. (2009). 유전자만이 아니다 [김준흥, 역]. 서울: 도서출판 이음. (원본출간 년도: 2005).
41 Ridley, M. (2001). 이타적 유전자 [신좌섭, 역]. 서울: 사이언스북스. (원본출간년도: 1996).
42 Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburg, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068-1095.
43 Sally, D., & Hill, E. (2006). The development of interpersonal strategy: Autism, theory-of-mind, cooperation and fairness. Economic Psychology, 27(1), 73-97.   DOI
44 Silverman, L. K. (1990). Social and emotional education of the gifted: The discoveries of Leta Hollingworth. Roeper Review 12(3), 171-178.   DOI
45 Song, K. H., & Porath, M. (2005). Common and domain-specific cognitive characteristics of gifted students: An integrated model of human abilities. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 229-246.   DOI
46 Strain, P., Shores, R., & Kerr, M. (1976). An experimental analysis of spillover effects on the social interaction of behaviorally handicapped preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(9), 31-40.
47 Weimann, J. (1994). Individual behavior in free riding experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 54(2), 185-220.   DOI
48 Murnighan, J., & Saxon, M. (1998) Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. Economic Psychology, 19(4), 415-445.   DOI