Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what D

Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2". As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching and associative memory. However, when faced with a difficult question, often times the best it is capable of is to answer a different, easier question instead. System 2, on the other hand, is the source of effortful, logical thought. It requires deliberate effort to engage and because of this is often described as "lazy". In everyday experience, we rely on system 1 most of the time, and most of the time that works well and is sufficient. An example is reading: an experienced reader rarely needs to sound out the individual letters of each word, instead perceiving entire words and phrases at once; that's system 1 at work. Now, if you ask someone to answer an objective question that has a partisan aspect to it, system 1 will immediately provide an answer (without you even asking it to, and regardless of whether system 1 is actually capable of providing an accurate answer). In this case, it's likely that system 1 is actually answering a question which is superficially similar to but not the same as the one that was asked (e.g., "is this my tribe" instead of "did deficits increase or decrease during the Clinton administration"). At this point, unless a person chooses to engage system 2, they are likely to accept the only answer at hand, the one suggested by system 1. The possibility of receiving a payment for an objectively accurate answer provides motivation for engaging system 2.