Cited by 139Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior

Kamas, Linda, Preston, Anne·2021·Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654

Cites

83 of 83 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kamas, L., & Preston, A.
Affiliations
  • Santa Clara University (US)
  • Haverford College (US)
Corresponding author
Kamas, Linda
Venue
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
92
Pages
101654
ISSN
2214-8043 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3110364988
Cited by
139
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Santa Clara University
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
empathy, gender differences, prosocial behavior, empathic concern, dictator game, charitable giving, public goods game, trust game, personality traits

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