The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Eye‐tracking Social Preferences
Abstract
We hypothesize that if people are motivated by a particular social preference, then choosing in accordance with this preference will lead to an identifiable pattern of eye movements. We track eye movements while subjects make choices in simple three‐person distribution experiments. We characterize each choice in terms of three different types of social preferences: efficiency, maxi‐min, and envy. For the characterization, we use either the choice data or the eye movement data. The evidence indicates that distributional choices are broadly consistent with the choice rule implied by eye movements. In other words, what subjects appear to be interested in when you look at their choices corresponds to what they appear to be interested in when you look at their eye movements. This correspondence lends credibility to the behavioral relevance of social preferences models. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 citing paper
“Eye-tracking cannot reveal by far all aspects of the decision-making [50], because it is not entirely clear if humans comprehend the information they watch [51], and whether watched information is incorporated into the decision-making process [52].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [52]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1150 · Cited by 924
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 10.1111/1468-0262.00302 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/mic.3.4.68 · doi:10.1257/mic.3.4.68
- Bolton G. E., 1991, A comparative model of bargaining: theory and evidence, American Economic Review, 81, 1096
- 10.1257/aer.90.1.166 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.0012-9682.2008.00817.x · DOI
- Duchowski A. T., 2007, Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice
- 10.1257/0002828042002741 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/003355399556151 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-374176-9.00001-4 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1055 · DOI · Paper page
- Hristova E. &Grinberg M.(2005).Information acquisition in the iterated Prisoner's dilemma game: an eye‐tracking study. InProceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp.983–988).
- 10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.388 · doi:10.1162/jeea.2009.7.2-3.388
- 10.1006/redy.1998.0023 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/obhd.1996.0087 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/aer.101.2.900 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03202637 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/aer.100.3.984 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making
Krajbich, I. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.008 · Cited by 165
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Jiang, T., Potters, J., & Funaki, Y.
- Affiliations
- Department of Economics Tilburg Univeristy, The Netherlands; Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania USA
- Department of Economics Tilburg University The Netherlands
- School of Political Science and Economics Waseda University Japan
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-10-13
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 157-168
- ISSN
- 0894-3257
- 1099-0771
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
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.
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
