Anine Cecilie Riege

• Juanchich, Marie; Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Amélie; Riege, Anine Cecilie; Broggin, Elena & Sirota, Miroslav (2026). Testing the effect of the directionality of verbal predictions on decision-making with experience and feedback. Thinking and Reasoning. ISSN 1354-6783. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2026.2710970. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Martinussen, Liva Jenny; Riege, Anine Cecilie; Richter, Jasmin; Briseid, Eyvind Martol; Maugesten, Marianne & Reber, Rolf (2025). Prospective mathematics teachers’ situational interest for word problems. Educational Psychology. ISSN 0144-3410. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2025.2477814. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hauge, Karen Evelyn; Kotsadam, Andreas & Riege, Anine (2023). CULTURE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN WILLINGNESS TO COMPETE. The Economic Journal. ISSN 0013-0133. 133(654), s. 2403–2426. doi: 10.1093/ej/uead033. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hauge, Karen Evelyn; Kotsadam, Andreas & Riege, Anine (2023). Culture and gender differences in willingness to compete. The Economic Journal. ISSN 0013-0133. 133(654), s. 2403–2426. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787990. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  We investigate how culture affects gender differences in willingness to compete in a large pre-registered experiment using an epidemiological approach. Our sample of 1,943 Norwegians with parents born in 59 different countries shows a smaller gender gap in willingness to compete among individuals of more gender-equal ancestries. The difference is driven by women with parents from more gender-equal countries wanting to compete more and men with the same ancestry wanting to compete less. The results are robust to controlling for a large set of factors at the individual, parental and ancestral country levels, indicating that gendered culture shapes competitive preferences.

• Riege, Anine & Reber, Rolf (2022). Availability. I Pohl, Rüdiger F. (Red.), Cognitive illusions, 3rd ed.. Routledge. ISSN 9780367724245. s. 175–190. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Moon, Karis; Riege, Anine; Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Amélie & Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle (2021). Development and validation of the treatment self-regulation questionnaire assessing healthcare professionals’ motivation for flu vaccination (TSRQ-Flu). Psychology and Health. ISSN 0887-0446. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1912343. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Moon, Karis; Riege, Anine; Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Amélie & Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle (2021). The Moderating Effect of Autonomy on Promotional Health Messages Encouraging Healthcare Professionals’ to Get the Influenza Vaccine. Journal of experimental psychology. Applied. ISSN 1076-898X. 27(2), s. 187–200. doi: 10.1037/xap0000348. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine H.; Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Amélie & Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle (2020). Covert eye-tracking: an innovative method to investigate compliance with instructions. Psychological Research. ISSN 0340-0727. doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01451-9. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Nordbye, Gro Hege Haraldsen; Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2018). Better safe than sorry: Risking irresponsibility by seeking uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. ISSN 0894-3257. 31(1), s. 87–99. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2049. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Research findings differ as to whether choosing a risky option is an efficient strategy for decision makers seeking to avoid responsibility for potential failures. A risky choice may leave the final outcome to chance factors, but the decision maker can still be held responsible for choosing risk. Further, it is unclear whether a risky choice is a responsible choice. The present article investigates the putative relationship between risk‐taking and responsibility by drawing a distinction between being responsible for the outcome (R1) versus acting responsibly (R2). Four experiments were performed, in which participants were presented with scenarios describing decision makers facing a choice between a risky (uncertain) option and a riskless (certain) option, framed in terms of losses or equivalent gains. The results showed that decision makers who chose the risky alternative were judged to have acted in a less responsible manner (R2), while still being held equally responsible for the outcome (R1), unless they were ignorant of the risks involved. Choosing risk did not absolve decision makers from blame, despite being less causal and less in control than those who chose the riskless option. Risky decision makers were also judged to be more personally involved. The dissociation between R1 and R2 ratings confirms earlier findings and serves to clarify an alleged relationship between risky choices and responsibility aversion. Framing effects for own choices were found in both scenarios. In contrast, responsibility ratings were only slightly affected by frame. This is the peer reviewed version of the article, which has been published in final form at onlinelibrary.wiley.com. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.

• Riege, Anine Cecilie & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2017). Everybody Will Win, and All Must Be Hired: Comparing Additivity Neglect with the Nonselective Superiority Bias. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. ISSN 0894-3257. 30(1), s. 95–106. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1924. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Two streams of research looking at referent‐dependent judgments from slightly different angles are subadditivity research and research on the nonselective superiority bias. Both biases violate basic formal constraints: the probabilities of a set of exclusive events cannot add up to more than 100%, and a set of attractive candidates cannot all be rated as superior to the group mean. We examine in three experiments how these two biases are related, by asking the same participants to perform both kinds of tasks on the same material. Both biases appear to be widespread, even for sets where all alternatives are presented together, but they differ in the way they are affected by response format and experimental setup. Thus, presenting participants with an unbiased set of ratings will reduce but not normalize their probability estimates of the same alternatives; while presenting them with an unbiased (additive) set of probabilities will make most alternatives appear inferior to the group mean, inverting the superiority bias. Self‐reports reveal that additivity neglect and the nonselective superiority bias can be based on two main response‐strategies: (i) considering each alternative independently or (ii) comparing alternatives, while neglecting their complementarity. In both cases, assessments will be the outcome of a compromise between the perceived “absolute” merits of each alternative, its standing relative to referents, and properties of the response scale. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

• Lone, Jon Anders; Riege, Anine Cecilie; Bjørklund, Roald Arild; Hoff, Thomas & Bjørkli, Cato Alexander (2017). The relationship between the broader environment and the work system in a university setting: a systems approach. Studies in Higher Education. ISSN 0307-5079. 42(1), s. 3–22. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1034259. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie; Sulutvedt, Unni & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2014). Format dependent probabilities: An eye-tracking analysis of additivity neglect. Polish Psychological Bulletin. ISSN 0079-2993. 45(1), s. 12–20. doi: 10.2478/ppb-2014-0003. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  When people are asked to estimate the probabilities of uncertain events, they often neglect the additivity principle, which requires that the probabilities assigned to an exhaustive set of outcomes should add up to 100%. Previous studies indicate that additivity neglect is dependent on response format, self-generated probability estimates being more coherent than estimates on rating scales. The present study made use of eye-tracking methodology, recording the movement, frequency and duration of fixations during the solution of ten additivity problems and two control tasks. Participants produced more non-additive estimates in the Scale format than in the Self-generated format. Self-generated estimates also led to longer decision time and a higher number of repeated inspections, suggesting a deliberate comparison process. In contrast, the Scale format seemed to encourage a case-based approach where each outcome is evaluated in isolation.

• Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2013). Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. ISSN 0749-5978. 121(1), s. 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.004. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  When people are asked to estimate the probabilities for an exhaustive set of more than two events, they often produce probabilities that add up to more than 100%. Potential determinants for such additivity neglect are explored in four experiments. Additive responses vary between experimental conditions, mainly as a result of response format, with a scale format leading to fewer additive responses than a list format with self-generated, written probabilities. Participants with high numeracy scores produced more additive responses, especially after being primed with a numeracy scale. Additivity neglect for 100% sums appears to be unrelated to other subadditive judgments, like non-additive disjunctions. We conclude that additivity neglect is caused by a case-based approach, which comes natural in real-life situations where the full set of outcomes is not available.

• Teigen, Karl Halvor; Juanchich, Marie & Riege, Anine H (2013). Improbable outcomes: Infrequent or extraordinary? Cognition. ISSN 0010-0277. 127(1), s. 119–139. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.005. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Research on verbal probabilities has shown that unlikely or improbable events are believed to correspond to numerical probability values between 10% and 30%. However, building on a pragmatic approach of verbal probabilities and a new methodology, the present paper shows that unlikely outcomes are most often associated with outcomes that have a 0% frequency of occurrence. Five studies provide evidence that when people complete or evaluate statements describing “improbable” outcomes, based on outcome distributions or expected ranges, they favour extraordinary outcomes that have not occurred in the original sample. For quantitative outcomes that can be ordered on a unipolar dimension, an improbable outcome is typically perceived as having a higher outcome value than those observed. Thus when battery life for a sample of laptop batteries is shown to range from 2.5 to 4.5 hours, 5 or 6 hours are considered better examples of “improbable” duration times than those that actually occur in 10% of the cases. Similarly, an improbable exam grade is one that has not yet been observed, rather than one that has been obtained by a small percentage of students. And when climate experts claim that a 100 cm increase in sea level by the year 2100 is “improbable”, participants believe that the same experts’ maximum estimates will be much lower. We conclude that judgments of what is improbable suggest outcomes beyond the expected range, rather than simply low frequency outcomes. These results are compatible with a causal (propensity) interpretation rather than a statistical (frequency) interpretation of probabilities.

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Martinussen, Liva Jenny; Riege, Anine Cecilie; Nilsen, Ida Bekke Rønneberg & Reber, Rolf (2023). Writing your own story about a statistical graph is more interesting than reading one. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Reber, Rolf; Riege, Anine & Martinussen, Liva Jenny (2021). Question asking, storytelling, and problem posing as interventions to trigger situational interest and learning in STEM-topics: A user-based approach to intervention-development. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine; Moon, Karis; Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle & Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Amélie (2021). The role of autonomy in decisions to vaccinate against the flu. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hauge, Karen Evelyn; Kotsadam, Andreas & Riege, Anine (2020). Culture and gender differences in willingness to compete. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine H. & Halkjelsvik, Torleif (2019). Communicating scientific disagreement in health policy decisions and its effect on public perception. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie; Bjørgfinsdottir, Røskva & Miljeteig, K. (2015). An eye for probabilities: The effect of answering format on Additivity neglect. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2015). Everybody will win, and all must be hired:Comparing additivity neglect with the nonselective superiority bias. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie (2015). Comparative processing - How to best evaluate your next vacation destination? Impuls : Tidsskrift for psykologi. ISSN 0801-2911. 68(1), s. 53–59. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2014). The relationship between additivity neglect and the nonselective superiority bias. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie; Sulutvedt, Unni; Bjørgfinsdottir, Røskva & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2014). An eye-tracking analysis of the effect of answering format on additivity neglect. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Riege, Anine Cecilie; Sulutvedt, Unni & Teigen, Karl Halvor (2013). Additivity neglect of probability estimates: An eye-tracking analysis. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i NVA