The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we present a first survey of the literature regarding whether the strategy method, in which a responder makes conditional decisions for each possible information set, leads to different experimental results than does the more standard direct-response method, in which the responder learns the action of the first mover and then chooses a response. Of the twenty-nine existing comparisons, sixteen find no difference, while four do find differences, and nine comparisons find mixed evidence. We also find some indications about the underlying determinants of when the two methods lead to different responses. For example, it appears that levels of punishment are substantially lower with the strategy method. In addition, it also appears that difference across these elicitation methods are more likely when people make fewer contingent choices. Finally, in no case do we find that a treatment effect found with the strategy method is not observed with the direct-response method.
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.
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature
Chaudhuri, A. (2011) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1 · Cited by 1,445
A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments
Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2015) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9421-0 · Cited by 706
Kimbrough, E. O., & Vostroknutov, A. (2016) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12152 · Cited by 373
Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment
McKay, R., Efferson, C., Whitehouse, H., & Fehr, E. (2011) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2125 · Cited by 193
Strategic Ignorance and the Robustness of Social Preferences
Grossman, Z. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1989 · Cited by 176
Metadata
- Authors
- Brandts, J., & Charness, G.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 375-398
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W2169411968
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 124.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10683-011-9272-x
- The paper
- Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9272-x
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.