Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?

Medientyp: E-Book

Titel: Cognitive Biases : Mistakes or Missing Stakes?

Beteiligte: Enke, Benjamin [VerfasserIn]; Gneezy, Uri [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]; Hall, Brian J. [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]; Martin, David [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]; Nelidov, Vadim [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]; Offerman, Theo [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]; van de Ven, Jeroen [Sonstige Person, Familie und Körperschaft]

Erschienen: [S.l.]: SSRN, [2020]

Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (70 p)

Sprache: Englisch

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3564873

Identifikator:

Entstehung:

Anmerkungen: Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments 2020 erstellt

Beschreibung: 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 pre-registered 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 cognitive effort as measured by response times increases 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. These results contrast with expert predictions that forecast larger performance improvements

Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang

Nur in Feld suchen:

Zuletzt gesuchte Begriffe: