The effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy in judgments: a meta-analysis¶
Yechiam, E., & Zeif, D. (2023). The effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy in judgments: a meta-analysis: a meta-analysis. Psychological Research.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Conjunction Fallacy
- … and no filler items it disappeared, and the collaborators disagreed about what that shows), nor of carelessness (it persists in trained researchers judging within their domain, and paying for correct answers lowers the share of violators without eliminating it, a small but robust debiasing effect across studies
This sourceA meta-analysis (n = 3276) finding a small but robust debiasing effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy (d = 0.19; odds ratio 1.40 for answering correctly when incentivized), against the earlier view that the fallacy is insensitive to incentives.
- … and no filler items it disappeared, and the collaborators disagreed about what that shows), nor of carelessness (it persists in trained researchers judging within their domain, and paying for correct answers lowers the share of violators without eliminating it, a small but robust debiasing effect across studies
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:5ddffe76d9b7 · see in the full table