CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesChild and Animal Learning Development

Effects of anonymous peer observation on adolescents’ preference for immediate rewards

Open access
Weigard, Alexander, Chein, Jason, Albert, Dustin, Smith, Ashley, Steinberg, Laurence·2014·Developmental Science
DOI 10.1111/desc.12099PMC PMC3869036
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research suggests that the presence of peers influences adolescent risk‐taking by increasing the perceived reward value of risky decisions. While prior work has involved observation of participants by their friends, the current study examined whether observation by an anonymous peer could elicit similarly increased reward sensitivity. Late adolescent participants completed a delay discounting task either alone or under the belief that performance was being observed from a neighboring room by an unknown viewer of the same gender and age. Even in this limited social context, participants demonstrated a significantly increased preference for smaller, immediate rewards when they believed that they were being watched. This outcome challenges several intuitive accounts of the peer effect on adolescent risk‐taking, and indicates that the peer influence on reward sensitivity during late adolescence is not dependent on familiarity with the observer. The findings have both theoretical and practical implications for our understanding of social influences on adolescents' risky behavior.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Late adolescents who believed they were being observed by an anonymous same-gender, same-age peer showed a stronger preference for smaller immediate rewards on a delay discounting task than those who completed it alone. The findings suggest peer effects on adolescent reward sensitivity do not require familiar, multiple, or physically present observers.

Key findings

  • Participants in the anonymous peer-observer condition had significantly lower average indifference points (M = $656.68, SD = 150.92) than those in the alone condition (M = $768.16, SD = 150.76), F(1,62) = 8.58, η² = .12, p < .01.
  • Discount rates were steeper in the peer condition (k = .0136) than in the alone condition (k = .0053), t(62) = 3.05, η² = .13, p = .003; this remained significant after excluding outliers with k z-scores > 2.5 (N = 60), t(58) = 3.373, η² = .16, p = .001.
  • Group differences in indifference points were significant at 1 month, t(62) = −2.233, p < .05; 6 months, t(62) = −2.785, p < .01; and 1 year, t(62) = −2.823, p < .01, with a marginally significant delay × condition interaction, F(5,310) = 1.998, η² = .03, p = .079.
  • The authors report no group difference in choice reversals, t(62) = 0.19, p = .85, arguing the effect was not simply due to distraction.

Methods

  • Sixty-four undergraduates ages 18–22 (M = 19.3, SD = .98) were randomly assigned to an anonymous peer-observer condition (N = 32) or an alone condition (N = 32); two additional participants were excluded because debriefing suggested they may not have believed the manipulation.
  • In the peer condition, participants were told a same-gender, comparable-age student would observe their performance via closed-circuit computer system and make predictions; a brief two-way radio introduction was staged with a voice recording. In the alone condition, participants were told no one would directly observe their performance.
  • The delay discounting task was identical to O’Brien et al. (2011): delayed reward fixed at US$1000, immediate reward starting at US$200, US$500, or US$800, six delays from 1 day to 1 year, titrating choices to indifference points; discount rate k was computed as V = A/(1 + kD). Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVA and independent-samples t-tests.

Limitations

  • The paper states the sample may be considered late adolescent or early adult, so generalizability to early adolescents remains unknown; risk-taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak earlier in adolescence.
  • The paper notes that the findings show familiarity, multiple observers, and physical proximity are not necessary preconditions for the peer effect, but do not provide direct evidence about whether these factors moderate the magnitude of the effect.
  • The paper acknowledges a comparison caveat with O’Brien et al. (2011): the current sample was slightly older (M = 19.3 vs. 18.5 years), which may help explain different average indifference points.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was a small undergraduate convenience sample drawn from psychology and marketing courses, mostly ages 18–20 (all but 5), and the study focused on one delay discounting task within a larger battery; the observer was not real, and the manipulation relied on deception.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/desc.12099

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

6 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Participants in the peer condition exhibited steeper discounting on average (k=.0136) than those in the alone condition (k=.0053), t(62)=3.05, p=.003.

    “an independent samples t-test based on k value estimates revealed a highly significant main effect of experimental condition, t(62) = 3.05, η2=.13, p=.003, indicating that participants who believed they were being observed by a peer exhibited steeper discounting on average (k=.0136) than those who were not observed (k=.0053).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
  • Findingown data

    In late adolescents, believing that one is being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and age increases the preference for smaller immediate rewards, as shown by lower average indifference points compared with completing the task alone.

    “participants demonstrated a significantly increased preference for smaller, immediate rewards when they believed that they were being watched.”
    • Also stated in: § Indifference Point · plain
      “participants in the peer condition evinced significantly lower indifference points (M=$656.68, SD=150.92) than those in the alone condition (M=$768.16, SD=150.76).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “The present results indicate that, in late adolescents, the knowledge that one is being observed by an anonymous person of like gender and age can increase sensitivity to immediate rewards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
  • Findingown data

    The condition effect size was larger in the present sample (Cohen's d = .74) than in the O'Brien et al. sample (Cohen's d = .40).

    “and the condition effect size was actually larger in the present sample (Cohen’s d = .74) than in the O’Brien et al sample (Cohen’s d = .40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Brien et al

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
  • Findingcitation

    The magnitude of the peer effect, expressed as a percentage of the alone average, was almost identical in the present study (85%) and in O'Brien et al. (2011) (89%).

    “Despite these differences, the magnitude of the peer effect (expressed as a percentage of the alone average) is almost identical across the two studies – 85% in the present sample, and 89% in the O’Brien et al (2011) sample”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Brien et al (2011)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
  • Study design and conductown data

    The significant effect of condition on discount rate remained after excluding subjects with k z-scores greater than 2.5 (N=4), t(58)=3.373, p=.001.

    “Comparisons conducted on the remaining subjects (N=60) again indicated a highly significant main effect of experimental condition, t(58)= 3.373, η2=.16, p=.001”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 10

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The current sample was significantly older than the O'Brien et al. sample (M=19.3 vs 18.5 years), t(162)=6.5, p<.01.

    “perhaps owing to the slightly, but significantly, older age of the current group (M=19.3 years) relative to that of O’Brien et al (M=18.5 years); t(162) = 6.5, p <.01.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Brien et al

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The two experimental groups did not differ at baseline in age, gender, race, or ethnicity.

    “The two groups did not differ in age, t(62)=.38, p=.71, gender, χ2(1)=.25, p=.62, race, χ2(3)=2.095, p=.55, or ethnicity, χ2(1)=.21, p=.88.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control condition.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental (N=32) or control condition (N=32).”
    • Also stated in: § Procedure · plain
      “After completing the questionnaires, participants were randomly assigned to either an alone or a peer-observer condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two additional participants were excluded from analyses because their debriefing responses indicated they may not have believed the social context manipulation.

    “Two additional participants provided data, but were excluded from analyses because their responses during debriefing indicated that they may not have believed the social context manipulation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    O'Brien et al. (2011) found that participants in the peer condition displayed a greater preference for immediate rewards than those who completed the task alone, as indicated by lower average indifference points and higher rates of discounting.

    “In the O’Brien et al. (2011) study, participants in the peer condition displayed a greater preference for immediate rewards than participants who completed the task by themselves, as indicated by significantly lower average indifference points and higher rates of discounting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Brien et al. (2011)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The dual systems account explains adolescent behavioral tendencies in terms of the developmental interaction between a ventral reward system and a dorsal cortical control system.

    “The dual systems account explains adolescent behavioral tendencies in terms of the developmental interaction between a ventral reward system and a dorsal cortical control system (Steinberg, 2010)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gardner and Steinberg (2005) found that mid- and late adolescents took significantly more risks in the presence of peers than alone, an effect not seen among adults.

    “Mid- and late adolescents who completed the task in the presence of peers took significantly more risks than those who performed the same task alone, an effect that was not seen among the adults.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gardner and Steinberg (2005)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The peer effect on immediate reward sensitivity in this study can be attributed only to the participant's belief that he or she is being observed by an age-mate, and not to overt peer pressure.

    “Further, because participants could not communicate freely with the observer, the peer effect on immediate reward sensitivity in this study can be attributed only to the participant’s belief that he or she is being observed by an age-mate, and not to any overt peer pressure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The experimental paradigm employed here validates a novel experimental paradigm for future research in the area.

    “The results also address (and discount) several alternative explanations for the phenomenon, and validate a novel experimental paradigm for future research in the area.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The present study provides essential clues regarding the origins of the impact of peers on adolescents' decision-making.

    “In sum, the present study provides essential clues regarding the origins of the impact of peers on adolescents’ decision-making.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of an anonymous peer minimized the participant's consideration of the observer's values or opinions.

    “The use of an anonymous peer minimized the participant’s consideration of the observer’s values or opinions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The finding that an anonymous peer who is not physically present can affect adolescents' reward preferences, and likely their risk taking, has implications for the safety of adolescents who use the Internet.

    “The finding that an anonymous peer who is not physically present can affect adolescents’ reward preferences, and likely their risk taking, also has important implications for the safety of adolescents who use the Internet to communicate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The generalizability of the present findings to early adolescents remains unknown.

    “As noted in the introduction, another possible limitation of the study is the fact that the present sample contained individuals who might categorically be referred to as either late adolescents or early adults. Risk-taking behaviors, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak somewhat earlier in adolescence (Steinberg, 2010), so the generalizability of the present findings to early”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    O'Brien et al. (2011) acknowledged the issue of explicit persuasion and suggested that future research should rule out the possibility that explicit persuasion underlies the peer effect.

    “O’Brien et al. (2011) acknowledged this issue, and suggested that an important goal of future research would be to rule out the possibility that explicit persuasion underlies the peer effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O’Brien et al. (2011)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The dual systems framework explains risk taking during adolescence by proposing that increased sensitivity to immediate rewards overwhelms a still maturing cognitive control system.

    “The dual systems framework explains risk taking during this period by proposing that increased sensitivity to immediate rewards (which can be obtained by risky behavior) overwhelms a still maturing cognitive control system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    While interacting with friends or anonymous strangers over the Internet, adolescents' risk taking may be increased to the same degree and through the same mechanism as when adolescents are actually with their friends.

    “The results of the current study suggest that, while interacting with friends or even anonymous strangers over the Internet, adolescents’ risk taking may be increased to the same degree and through the same mechanism as when adolescents are actually with their friends.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The reward system undergoes rapid developmental change in early adolescence, leading to increased sensitivity to rewarding stimuli.

    “Importantly, this system undergoes rapid developmental change in early adolescence (e.g., Laviola, Pascucci & Pieretti, 2001), leading to increased sensitivity to rewarding stimuli (Galvan, 2010; Leijenhorst, Moor, Op de Macks, Rombouts, Westenberg & Crone, 2010; Spear, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Laviola, Pascucci & Pieretti, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Galvan, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Leijenhorst, Moor, Op de Macks, Rombouts, Westenberg & Crone, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies indicate that the average indifference point evinced by individuals tested alone increases as a function of age.

    “Previous studies have indicated that the average indifference point evinced by individuals tested alone increases as a function of age (Steinberg et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chein et al. (2011) found that adolescents took more risks in a simulated driving game when they believed close friends were observing, and showed greater activation in ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex than when alone.

    “Adolescent participants (ages 14–18) in the scanner took more risks in a simulated driving game when they believed that two close friends were observing their behavior from an adjacent room and also exhibited relatively greater activation in the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex when their peers were observing them than when they were alone.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al. (2011)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The present findings would likely also apply to younger teenagers, because early adolescents are more susceptible to the peer effect than college undergraduates.

    “We do know from prior studies, however, that early adolescents are more susceptible to the peer effect than college undergraduates (Chein et al., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005), so we have no reason to think that the present findings would not also apply to younger teenagers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gardner & Steinberg, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Risk-taking behaviors, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak somewhat earlier in adolescence.

    “Risk-taking behaviors, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak somewhat earlier in adolescence (Steinberg, 2010)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings do not provide direct evidence for whether the magnitude of the peer effect is moderated by familiarity, number of observers, or physical proximity.

    “they do not provide any direct evidence for whether the magnitude of the effect is moderated by these factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This pattern of brain development coincides with greater behavioral reward sensitivity among adolescents relative to adults.

    “This pattern of brain development coincides with greater behavioral reward sensitivity among adolescents relative to adults (Cauffman, Shulman, Steinberg, Claus, Banich, Graham et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cauffman, Shulman, Steinberg, Claus, Banich, Graham et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.

    “Two additional participants provided data, but were excluded from analyses because their responses during debriefing indicated that they may not have believed the social context manipulation.”
    “In the peer-observer condition, the participant was told that another student of the same gender and comparable age would be observing his or her task performance via a closed-circuit computer system, and would be making predictions about the participant’s performance on the computerized tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants in the alone condition believed that no one was observing their performance.

    “In the alone condition, participants were explicitly told that no one would directly observe their performance.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.

    “We note that in that study, and in the present study, we construe this undergraduate age cohort as representative of a “late adolescent” sample, but acknowledge that individuals in the older half of these samples might also be referred to as young adults”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the presence of peers, adolescents evince a stronger preference for immediate (as opposed to delayed) rewards on a Delay Discounting task that does not involve risk taking.

    “Consistent with this claim, we have shown that, in the presence of peers, adolescents evince a stronger preference for immediate (as opposed to delayed) rewards on a Delay Discounting task that does not involve risk taking (O’Brien et al., 2011, Weigard et al., 2014).”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Weigard et al., 2014

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: χ2(1)=.21, p = .88

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .88 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .647. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .88 · recomputed p = .647

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(1) = 0.21reported p = .88 · recomputed p = .647

    “χ2(1)=.21, p = .88”

  • Consistentt(62) = 0.38reported p = .71 · recomputed p = .705

    “t(62)=.38, p = .71”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 0.25reported p = .62 · recomputed p = .617

    “χ2(1)=.25, p = .62”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 2.095reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .553

    “χ2(3)=2.095, p = .55”

  • Consistentt(162) = 6.5reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(162) = 6.5, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(62) = 0.19reported p = .85 · recomputed p = .850

    “t(62)=0.19, p = .85”

6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weigard, A., Chein, J., Albert, D., Smith, A., & Steinberg, L.
Affiliations
Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Chein, Jason
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11-06
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
71-78
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/desc.12099
PMC
PMC3869036
OpenAlex
W2117186845
Semantic Scholar
e03f7adb700866a8c77c76203ccd872a54d02d80
Cited by
140
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21 DA022546)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA020006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
peer influence, adolescent risk-taking, delay discounting, reward sensitivity, immediate rewards, late adolescence, risk-taking
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Communication, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reward, Risk-Taking, Social Behavior, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review