• Graduate program
    • Why Tinbergen Institute?
    • Program Structure
    • Courses
    • Course Registration
    • Facilities
    • Admissions
    • Recent PhD Placements
  • Research
  • News
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Behavioral Macro and Complexity
      • Econometrics and Data Science Methods for Business and Economics and Finance
      • Experimenting with Communication – A Hands-on Summer School
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Introduction in Genome-Wide Data Analysis
      • Research on Productivity, Trade, and Growth
      • Summer School Business Data Science Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
    • Events Archive
  • Summer School
  • Alumni
  • Times

Enke, B., Gneezy, U., Hall, B., Martin, D., Nelidov, V., Offerman, T. and Ven, J. (2021). Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes? Review of Economics and Statistics, :.


  • Journal
    Review of Economics and Statistics

Despite decades of research on heuristics and biases, empirical evidence on theeffect 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.