• Graduate Programs
    • Tinbergen Institute Research Master in Economics
      • Why Tinbergen Institute?
      • Research Master
      • Admissions
      • All Placement Records
      • PhD Vacancies
    • Facilities
    • Research Master Business Data Science
    • Education for external participants
    • Summer School
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • PhD Vacancies
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Development Economics
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • The Economics of Crime
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Markets with Frictions
      • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 2026 Tinbergen Institute Opening Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Summer School
  • Alumni
    • PhD Theses
    • Master Theses
    • Selected PhD Placements
    • Key alumni publications
    • Alumni Community

Enke, B., Gneezy, U., Hall, B., Martin, D., Nelidov, V., Offerman, T. and \van de Ven\, J. (2023). Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes? Review of Economics and Statistics, 105(4):818–832.


  • Journal
    Review of Economics and Statistics

Despite decades of research on heuristics and biases, evidence on the effect of large incentives on cognitive biases is scant. We test the effect of incentives on four widely documented biases: base-rate neglect, anchoring, failure of contingent thinking, and intuitive reasoning. In laboratory experiments with 1,236 college students in Nairobi, we implement three incentive levels: no incentives, standard lab payments, and very high incentives. We find that very high stakes increase response times by 40% but improve performance only very mildly or not at all. In none of the tasks do very high stakes come close to debiasing participants.