Cited by 174Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gypped

Rapoport, Amnon, Eshed-Levy, Dalit·1989·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90012-5

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rapoport, A., & Eshed-Levy, D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Rapoport, Amnon
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1989-12
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
325-344
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012046704
Cited by
174
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
public goods provision, free-riding, greed, social dilemmas, non-cooperative behavior

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