Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471828›Full record

ArticleJournal of evolutionary economics2023

Target-the-Two: a lab-in-the-field experiment on routinization.

Giuseppe Attanasi, Massimo Egidi, Elena Manzoni

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evolutionary economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Giuseppe AttanasiDepartment of Economics and Law, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0848-5770
Massimo EgidiSchool of Government, LUISS University, Rome, Italy.
Elena ManzoniDepartment of Economics, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRLibera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli · ITUniversity of Bergamo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paper investigates the cognitive determinants of routinization and creativity by means of a lab-in-the-field experiment run at the 20th edition of a mass gathering festival in Italy ("La Notte della Taranta"). Subjects play repeatedly the puzzle version of the Target-The-Two game (32 hands). In hands 1-16, the strategy that is optimal given the card distribution is always the same and it is the easiest to be discovered. Conversely, in hands 17-32, subjects are exposed to games where the optimal contextual strategy may differ from the one with which they have been made familiar. We investigate whether and how, in hands 17-32, subjects remain routinized on the familiar strategy, or creatively choose a different one. We define as "experts" those subjects who played the optimal contextual strategy in the overwhelming majority of hands 1-16. In hands 17-32, we find several subjects playing the familiar strategy even when it is not the optimal one, regardless of whether they are experts or not. This shows that routinization is deep-rooted in the cognitive individual process. Furthermore, routinization pays off only for inexpert subjects: creative inexpert subjects are slower and they fail to find the optimal contextual strategy in several hands. Among expert subjects instead, creative subjects, although still slower, need less moves than routinized ones to find the optimal contextual strategy.

Indexed as

CreativityLab-in-the-field experimentRoutinizationTarget-The-Two game

Identifiers

PMID36471828
PMCPMC9713112
OpenAlexW4310780885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.