Cited by 343Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Rational choice with status quo bias

Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, Ok, Efe A.·2005·Journal of Economic Theory

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jet.2004.03.007

Cites

41 of 41 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

6 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Ok, Efe A.
Venue
Journal of Economic Theory
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
1-29
ISSN
0022-0531 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970542860
Cited by
343
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Theory (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
status quo bias, rational choice theory, revealed preference, endowment effect, choice 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