The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“It seems that proposers in the contest condition felt self-servingly entitled to a higher payoff, but responders did not view the contest as relevant to the fair division of the pie.”
From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat and Smith, 1994
In the citing paper
“Offers in the contest condition were lower than in the chance condition, and the rejection rate was substantially higher.”
From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat and Smith, 1994
In the citing paper
“Experiments using the ultimatum game have shown that seemingly subtle variations in procedure that should not matter from a strictly economic point of view-for example, the mechanism that determines the roles, whether the game is framed as an offer game or a demand game, and the timing and method of eliciting an offerall have powerful effects on how people play the game (Blount, 1995;Hoffman, McC”
From Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases (1997) · cites this paper as Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat and Smith, 1994
In the citing paper
“To assess the convergent validity of the ZPG, participants played the dictator game [31].”
From Short-term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game (2011) · cites this paper as [31]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 997
Civai, C., Rumiati, R. I., & Rustichini, A. (2013) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.002 · Cited by 17
Moral Aspects of Professions and Professional Practice
Mınnameıer, G. (2014) · Springer international handbooks of education · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8902-8_3 · Cited by 17
Sorting and communication in weak-link group contests
Brookins, P., Lightle, J. P., & Ryvkin, D. (2018) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2018.05.010 · Cited by 16
Framing effects in the prisoner’s dilemma but not in the dictator game
Goerg, S. J., Rand, D. G., & Walkowitz, G. (2019) · Journal of the Economic Science Association · doi:10.1007/s40881-019-00081-1 · Cited by 17
A qualitative study of perception of a dishonesty experiment
Frollová, N., Vranka, M. A., & Houdek, P. (2021) · Journal of Economic Methodology · doi:10.1080/1350178x.2021.1936598 · Cited by 17
Sabotage versus Discouragement: Which Dominates Post Promotion Tournament Behavior?
Johnson, D. B., & Salmon, T. C. (2016) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.1002/soej.12115 · Cited by 15
Simple Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Social Behavior
Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388435.003.0001 · Cited by 20
The impact of exchange context on the activation of equity in ultimatum games
Hoffman, E. N., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. S. (2000) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/bf01669204 · Cited by 17
Self-citationFong, D. Κ. H., & Bolton, G. E. (1997) · Journal of Business and Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.1997.10524711 · Cited by 17
Camerer, C. F. (2018) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2384 · Cited by 17
Are Atheists Implicit Theists?
Hitzeman, C., & Wastell, C. A. (2017) · Journal of Cognition and Culture · doi:10.1163/15685373-12342190 · Cited by 16
Pay What You Want (PWYW) pricing ex post consumption: a sales strategy for experience goods
Egbert, H., Greiff, M., & Xhangolli, K. (2015) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/jie.016.0249 · Cited by 16
Gratefully Received, Gratefully Repaid: The Role of Perceived Fairness in Cooperative Interactions
Lawrence, K., Tunney, R. J., & Ferguson, E. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114976 · Cited by 16
Negative Reciprocity in an Environment of Violent Conflict
Schubert, M., & Lambsdorff, J. G. (2013) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002713478792 · Cited by 16
Weimann, J. (2015) · Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik · doi:10.1515/pwp-2015-0017 · Cited by 18
Sustainability, Institutions and Behavior
Vatn, A. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9690-7_14 · Cited by 17
Harris, A. M., Young, A., Hughson, L., Green, D., Doan, S. N., Hughson, E. N., & Reed, C. L. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227717 · Cited by 17
Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms
Bartoš, V. (2021) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2021.02.019 · Cited by 16
Using Dictator Game Experiments to Learn About Charitable Giving
Cartwright, E. J., & Thompson, A. R. (2022) · VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11266-022-00490-7 · Cited by 22
Inequality and Procedural Justice in Social Dilemmas
Aksoy, O., & Weesie, J. (2009) · Journal of Mathematical Sociology · doi:10.1080/00222500903069624 · Cited by 15
Moral hypocrisy in economic games—how prosocial behavior is shaped by social expectations
Caviola, L., & Faber, N. S. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00897 · Cited by 15
Carpenter, J. P., Liati, A., & Vickery, B. P. (2010) · Rationality and Society · doi:10.1177/1043463109358486 · Cited by 16
Leading by Example to Protect the Environment
van der Heijden, E., & Moxnes, E. (2012) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002712445971 · Cited by 15
Petersen, M. B., Roepstorff, A., & Serritzlew, S. (2009) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781848447486.00012 · Cited by 17
It’s not fair: Folk intuitions about disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion
Shaw, A., & Choshen‐Hillel, S. (2017) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005830 · Cited by 14
Altruism and anonymity: A behavioral analysis
Locey, M. L., & Rachlin, H. C. (2015) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2015.06.002 · Cited by 16
Bargaining behavior and payoff uncertainty: Experimental evidence
Church, B. K., & Zhang, P. (1999) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0167-4870(99)00015-x · Cited by 15
An experimental analysis of subgame perfect play: the entry deterrence game
Mason, C. F., & Nowell, C. (1998) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(98)00113-9 · Cited by 16
The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approachPreprint
Kerschbamer, R. (2013) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 17
Do Good Laws Make Good Citizens? An Economic Analysis of Internalizing Legal ValuesPreprint
Cooter, R. (2000) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.229950 · Cited by 22
Trust Reciprocity and Interpersonal History: Fool Me Once Shame on You Fool Me Twice Shame on MePreprint
Dickhaut, J. W., Hubbard, J. M., & McCabe, K. (1998) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 16
Self-citationBergh, A., & Kärnä, A. (2022) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.13227 · Cited by 19
Are individuals more generous in loss contexts?
Cochard, F., Flage, A., Grolleau, G., et al. (2020) · Social Choice and Welfare · doi:10.1007/s00355-020-01266-y · Cited by 15
Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan
Adena, M., Hakimov, R., & Huck, S. (2023) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.4702 · Cited by 15
Sugden, R. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511522154.004 · Cited by 15
Gender- and frame-specific audience effects in dictator games
Alevy, J. E., Jeffries, F. L., & Lu, Y. (2013) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.030 · Cited by 18
When trustors compete for the favour of a trustee – A laboratory experiment
Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Grosse, N. D. (2012) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2012.09.004 · Cited by 13
The role of attribution of causality in economic decision making
Gurevich, G., Kliger, D., & Weiner, B. L. (2011) · The Journal of Socio-Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.07.005 · Cited by 13
The Problem of Epistemic Cost: Why Do Economists Not Change Their Minds (About the “Coase Theorem”)?
Yalçıntaş, A. (2013) · American Journal of Economics and Sociology · doi:10.1111/ajes.12037 · Cited by 15
Funkhouser, C. J., Zakriski, A. L., & Spoltore, J. D. (2017) · Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research · doi:10.24839/2325-7342.jn22.1.19 · Cited by 19
Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.004 · Cited by 15
Justice Preferences and the Arrow Problem
Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. (2007) · Journal of Theoretical Politics · doi:10.1177/0951629807080774 · Cited by 15
Market economies and pro-social behavior: Experimental evidence from Central Asia
Rosenbaum, S. M., Billinger, S., Stieglitz, N., Djumanov, A., & Atykhanov, Y. A. (2011) · The Journal of Socio-Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.10.010 · Cited by 15
Self-Serving Dictators and Economic Growth
Haile, D., Sadrieh, A., & Verbon, H. (2008) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2007.09.004 · Cited by 26
The Ultimatum Game: Optimal Strategies without Fairness
Burnell, S. J., Evans, L., & Yao, S. (1999) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1998.0669 · Cited by 15
The Impact of Ethics Education on Reporting BehaviorPreprint
Mayhew, B. W., & Murphy, P. R. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.557184 · Cited by 15
(Bad) Luck or (Lack of) Effort?: Comparing Social Sharing Norms between US and EuropePreprint
Sheremeta, R. M., Uler, N., & Rey‐Biel, P. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1935498 · Cited by 15
An Experimental Test of the Crowding Out Hypothesis: The Nature of Beneficient BehaviorPreprint
Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 15
Fairness ideals in inventory allocation
Spiliotopoulou, E., & Conte, A. (2021) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/deci.12540 · Cited by 14
Bridging the gap between the economics lab and the field: Dictator games and donations
Wang, X., & Navarro‐Martinez, D. (2023) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.19 · Cited by 17
Aycinena, D., Bogliacino, F., & Kimbrough, E. O. (2024) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2024.04.002 · Cited by 16
Pinazo, D., & Bresó, E. (2015) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1002/ijop.12223 · Cited by 13
Fairness, One's Source of Income, and Others' Decisions: An Ultimatum Game Experiment
Lee, K., & Shahriar, Q. (2016) · Managerial and Decision Economics · doi:10.1002/mde.2785 · Cited by 14
Because I (Don’t) Deserve It: Entitlement and Lying Behavior
Fries, T., & Parra, D. (2020) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.007 · Cited by 14
Asset Legitimacy and Distributive Justice in the Dictator Game: An Experimental Analysis
Mittone, L., & Ploner, M. (2010) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.708 · Cited by 15
On the nature of pessimism in taking and giving games
Smith, A. (2014) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2014.10.005 · Cited by 15
Choosing a public-spirited leader: An experimental investigation of political selection
Markussen, T., & Tyran, J. (2017) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.006 · Cited by 14
Brañas‐Garza, P., Bucheli, M., & Espinosa, M. P. (2020) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2020.102332 · Cited by 14
Barber, B., & English, W. (2018) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2018.11.008 · Cited by 14
Dynamic pricing with fairness concerns and a capacity constraint
Selove, M. (2019) · Quantitative Marketing and Economics · doi:10.1007/s11129-019-09212-8 · Cited by 14
Competitive Pricing Reduces Wasteful Counterproductive Behaviors
Bartling, B., Grieder, M., & Zehnder, C. (2017) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.08.007 · Cited by 16
The Political Coase Theorem: Experimental evidence
Galiani, S., Torrens, G., & Yanguas, M. L. (2014) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.016 · Cited by 14
Interpersonal Interaction and Economic Theory: The Case of Public Goods
Bardsley, N. (2000) · Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8292.00140 · Cited by 14
Paretian dictators: constraining choice in a voluntary contribution game
Oxoby, R. J. (2013) · Constitutional Political Economy · doi:10.1007/s10602-013-9139-6 · Cited by 13
Hsieh, G., Kraut, R. E., Hudson, S. E., et al. (2008) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460648 · Cited by 14
Ownership, punishment, and norms in a real-effort bargaining experiment
Ridinger, G. (2018) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.008 · Cited by 13
A cross-country experimental comparison of preferences for redistributionPreprint
Farina, F., & Grimalda, G. F. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 14
Conveniently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs About Others
Tella, R. D., & Truglia, R. N. P. (2010) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16645 · Cited by 13
Big Experimenter is Watching You! Anonymity and Prosocial Behavior in the LaboratoryPreprint
Barmettler, F., Fehr, E., & Zehnder, C. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1997180 · Cited by 14
Jakiela, P., Miguel, E. A., & Velde, V. L. T. (2010) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16449 · Cited by 15
Equity Concerns are Narrowly Framed
Exley, C. L., & Kessler, J. B. (2018) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w25326 · Cited by 17
Do Markets Erode Social Responsibility?Preprint
Bartling, B., & Weber, R. A. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2357561 · Cited by 12
On the Causes and Consequences of Cross-Cultural Differences
Nunn, N. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197631669.003.0003 · Cited by 13
Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment
Anderson, L. R., Freeborn, B. A., & Hulbert, J. P. (2012) · Review of Industrial Organization · doi:10.1007/s11151-011-9330-8 · Cited by 13
DECK, C. A., Servátka, M., & Tucker, S. J. (2013) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-013-9353-0 · Cited by 13
An experimental study of democracy breakdown, income and inequality
Ryvkin, D., & Semykina, A. (2016) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-016-9490-3 · Cited by 13
Fleiß, J. (2015) · Central European Journal of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10100-015-0385-8 · Cited by 13
The ‘materials’ of experimental economics: technological versus behavioral experiments
Santos, A. C. (2007) · Journal of Economic Methodology · doi:10.1080/13501780701562476 · Cited by 13
ULTIMATUM GAME WITH ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION: A STUDY OF DECEPTION AND FAIRNESS
Veselý, Š. (2014) · Studia Psychologica · doi:10.21909/sp.2014.01.650 · Cited by 13
A Neurocognitive Perspective on the Development of Social Decision-Making
Will, G., & Güroğlu, B. (2016) · Studies in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35923-1_15 · Cited by 15
Giving to charity to signal smarts: evidence from a lab experiment
Montano‐Campos, F., & Truglia, R. N. P. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2018.08.004 · Cited by 10
More or less money? An experimental study on receiving money
Tjøtta, S. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.007 · Cited by 13
Preferences over income distribution: Evidence from a choice experiment
Cêtre, S., Lobeck, M., Sénik, C., et al. (2019) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2019.102202 · Cited by 13
Redistributive Preferences and the Dimensionality of Self-Determination and Luck
Chavanne, D. (2016) · Review of Behavioral Economics · doi:10.1561/105.00000054 · Cited by 12
Cochard, F., Couprie, H., & Hopfensitz, A. (2015) · Toulouse 1 Capitole Publications (Université Toulouse I Capitole) · Cited by 11
Irlenbusch, B. (2004) · International Review of Law and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.irle.2004.10.005 · Cited by 13
Reexamination of the Association Between Anonymity and Self-Interested Unethical Behavior in Adults
Nogami, T. (2009) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/bf03395662 · Cited by 13
Belyanin, A. V. (2003) · Voprosy Ekonomiki · doi:10.32609/0042-8736-2003-1-4-23 · Cited by 14
Sticks and Carrots in Procurement: An Experimental Exploration
Bigoni, M., Spagnolo, G., & Valbonesi, P. (2014) · The B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · doi:10.1515/bejeap-2013-0110 · Cited by 13
Trust with Private and Common Property: Effects of Stronger Property Right Entitlements
Cox, J. C., & Hall, D. T. (2010) · Games · doi:10.3390/g1040527 · Cited by 13
Confiance, réciprocité et cheap talk
Meidinger, C., Robin, S., Ruffieux, B., et al. (1999) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3502739 · Cited by 13
What Ethics Can Learn From Experimental Economics – If Anything
Güth, W., & Kliemt, H. (2010) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2009.11.008 · Cited by 14
Selfishness, altruism, and inequality aversion toward consumers and farmers
Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman, B. C. (2010) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00478.x · Cited by 13
Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments?
Tausch, F., Potters, J., & Riedl, A. M. (2013) · Journal of Pensions Economics and Finance · doi:10.1017/s1474747212000388 · Cited by 13
Free Riders do not Like Uncertainty
Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. H. (1996) · Cited by 13
Giving in Dictator Games: Regard for Others or Regard by Others?Preprint
Koch, A. K., & Normann, H. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.779067 · Cited by 12
When Income Depends on Performance and Luck: The Effects of Culture and Information on GivingPreprint
Rey‐Biel, P., Sheremeta, R. M., & Uler, N. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2617382 · Cited by 15
At the mercy of a prisoner three dictator experiments
Chmura, T., Engel, C., & Englerth, M. (2016) · Applied Economics Letters · doi:10.1080/13504851.2016.1226486 · Cited by 12
Vorlaufer, T. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2019.07.001 · Cited by 11
Sample sizes in experimental games
Banerjee, S. (2020) · Research in Economics · doi:10.1016/j.rie.2020.07.002 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- Games and Economic Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 346-380
- ISSN
- 0899-8256 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2010008813
- Cited by
- 1,674
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 75 · 2013: 103 · 2012: 113
- FWCI
- 76.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Games and Economic Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- ultimatum game, dictator game, fairness, self-regarding preferences, first-mover advantage, property rights, anonymity, double-blind experiment, expectations, knowledge quiz
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
