Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-p6fvt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T05:48:19.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incentivized and non-incentivized liking ratings outperform willingness-to-pay in predicting choice – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2026

Joshua Hascher ,
Nitisha Desai  and
Ian Krajbich
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Corrigendum
Information
Judgment and Decision Making , Volume 21 , 2026 , e32
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026

The authors apologise for an error in Figure 3a. The article was published with an incorrect panel for Figure 3a (right). It was accidentally duplicated from Figure 3c (right). The correct figure is below.

Figure 3

Subjective-value histograms by experiment: (Left) Experiment 1, (Right) Experiment 2. The pooled distribution of subjective-values in (a) the unincentivized rating condition, (b) the WTP condition, and (c) the food-payment condition. A value of -1 corresponds to cases where subjects chose the “Would Not Eat” option.

Six histograms arranged in three rows comparing subjective-value distributions across two experiments and three incentive conditions. See long description.
Figure 3 Long description

The figure consists of three rows of paired histograms. The left column represents Experiment 1 and the right column represents Experiment 2. All Y-axes are labeled Proportion, ranging from 0.0 to 0.3. All X-axes represent Rating, ranging from -1 to 4.

Row (a) Unincentivized Condition Ratings (Blue bars):

- Left: A high peak at -1 (approximately 0.2). Ratings between 0 and 4 show small peaks at whole integers 1, 2, 3, and 4.

- Right: Similar high peak at -1 (above 0.2). The distribution across 0 to 4 is more fragmented with a notable peak at 4.

Row (b) W T P Condition Ratings (Green bars):

- Left: High peak at -1 (nearly 0.2). A cluster of bars appears between 0 and 1, peaking at 1.

- Right: The highest peak is at -1 (nearly 0.3). The remaining data is sparse with a small peak at 2.

Row (c) Incentivized Food-Payment Condition Ratings (Red bars):

- Left: Peak at -1 (approximately 0.15). Relatively flat distribution between 0 and 4 with minor peaks at 2 and 4.

- Right: Peak at -1 (0.2). Notable peaks at 1, 2, 3, and 4, with the highest positive rating peak at 4.

In all conditions, the -1 value (Would Not Eat) represents a significant proportion of the total responses.

References

Hascher, J., Desai, N., Krajbich, I. (2021). Incentivized and non-incentivized liking ratings outperform willingness-to-pay in predicting choice. Judgment and Decision Making. 16(6), 1464–1484. doi:10.1017/S1930297500008500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 3 Subjective-value histograms by experiment: (Left) Experiment 1, (Right) Experiment 2. The pooled distribution of subjective-values in (a) the unincentivized rating condition, (b) the WTP condition, and (c) the food-payment condition. A value of -1 corresponds to cases where subjects chose the “Would Not Eat” option.Figure 3 Long description.