| 来源类型 | Working Paper |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| DOI | 10.3386/w28650 |
| 来源ID | Working Paper 28650 |
| Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes? | |
| Benjamin Enke; Uri Gneezy; Brian Hall; David C. Martin; Vadim Nelidov; Theo Offerman; Jeroen van de Ven | |
| 发表日期 | 2021-04-12 |
| 出版年 | 2021 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | 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. |
| 主题 | Microeconomics ; Behavioral Economics |
| URL | https://www.nber.org/papers/w28650 |
| 来源智库 | National Bureau of Economic Research (United States) |
| 引用统计 | |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/586324 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Benjamin Enke,Uri Gneezy,Brian Hall,et al. Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?. 2021. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| w28650.pdf（1093KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
