Decision Journaling for Better Judgment Over Time

Who created and checked this page

Correction history

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 28 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Fact-check: corrected the Hagger et al. (2016) replication result (no significant depletion effect; d=0.04, CI includes zero), qualified the parole-board study as observational, and reframed 'decision-making reliably degrades judgment' as contested given the 36-lab null.

   Before

   Hagger 2016 showed a significant depletion effect; parole-board data proves judges were depleted; decision-making reliably degrades subsequent judgment.

   After

   Hagger 2016 found NO significant depletion effect (d=0.04, 95% CI [-0.07,0.15]); the parole-board study is an observational association; sustained decision-making MAY degrade judgment but this is contested (36-lab null, d=0.06).

   Why: Independent fact-check against Hagger et al. 2016 (Perspect Psychol Sci), Danziger et al. 2011 (PNAS), and Vohs et al. 2021.

   View the full record →

Full contribution timeline

1. Correction 28 July 2026

   Emir Baycan: Fact-check: corrected the Hagger et al. (2016) replication result (no significant depletion effect; d=0.04, CI includes zero), qualified the parole-board study as observational, and reframed 'decision-making reliably degrades judgment' as contested given the 36-lab null.

   Proof record →