Incentive Design Failures Explained

Contributions

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

1. 29 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Corrected 7 citation errors: Gneezy and Rustichini's institutional affiliations in their real 2000 fine-is-a-price study were anachronistic (their later-career UC San Diego/Minnesota positions, not their real 2000 affiliations at Technion/Tilburg); an unverified CMU Language Technologies Institute Stack Overflow study with an unverified 49 percent statistic; a self-contradictory unverified 'a 2018 analysis... published in Work Rules! (2015)' with an unverified 30 percent product-growth statistic; an unverified 2016 American Journal of Medicine Cleveland Clinic study with an incorrect patient-satisfaction percentile (claimed 83rd, real documented figure is 92nd) and unverified moral-distress/turnover statistics; an unverified 2008 Shipper and Manz Organizational Dynamics paper specifically about Nucor (their real, documented work covers other companies); an inflated Nucor total-compensation figure (150-170 percent vs the commonly documented 100-150 percent); and an unverified Rand Corporation 2012 CompStat report (the real research is Eterno and Silverman's 2012 book based on a 1,770-officer survey).

   What the page claimed

   Article cited specific institutions, studies, and statistics for real researchers, companies, and events that, on independent verification, were either anachronistic, unverified outright, or materially altered from documented figures.

   What was corrected

   Corrected Gneezy/Rustichini's affiliations to their real 2000-era institutions; removed the unverified Stack Overflow and Google statistics while preserving the real underlying dynamics they illustrated; corrected the Cleveland Clinic percentile to the real documented figure and removed the unverified study citation and unverifiable statistics; corrected the Nucor citation to accurately describe Shipper and Manz's real body of work and corrected the inflated compensation percentage; replaced the unverified RAND attribution with the real Eterno and Silverman source.

   Why: This was one of the most citation-dense articles in the batch; real researchers, institutions, and events were used as anchors for included an unverified studies, unverified statistics, and one anachronistic affiliation error - the Benabou/Tirole and Kerr citations in the same article verified as accurate.

   View the full record →

Contributors In This Page