1 option
Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes? / Benjamin Enke, Uri Gneezy, Brian Hall, David C. Martin, Vadim Nelidov, Theo Offerman, Jeroen van de Ven.
- Format:
- Book
- Author/Creator:
- Enke, Benjamin.
- Series:
- Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) no. w28650.
- NBER working paper series no. w28650
- Language:
- English
- Physical Description:
- 1 online resource: illustrations (black and white);
- Place of Publication:
- Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2021.
- Summary:
- Despite decades of research on heuristics and biases, empirical evidence on the effect of large incentives - as present in relevant economic decisions - on cognitive biases is scant. This paper tests the effect of incentives on four widely documented biases: base rate neglect, anchoring, failure of contingent thinking, and intuitive reasoning in the Cognitive Reflection Test. In laboratory experiments with 1,236 college students in Nairobi, we implement three incentive levels: no incentives, standard lab payments, and very high incentives that increase the stakes by a factor of 100 to more than a monthly income. We find that response times - a proxy for cognitive effort - increase by 40% with very high stakes. Performance, on the other hand, improves very mildly or not at all as incentives increase, with the largest improvements due to a reduced reliance on intuitions. In none of the tasks are very high stakes sufficient to de-bias participants, or come even close to doing so.
- Notes:
- Print version record
- April 2021.
The Penn Libraries is committed to describing library materials using current, accurate, and responsible language. If you discover outdated or inaccurate language, please fill out this feedback form to report it and suggest alternative language.