The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences
Abstract
The various behavioral disciplines model human behavior in distinct and incompatible ways. Yet, recent theoretical and empirical developments have created the conditions for rendering coherent the areas of overlap of the various behavioral disciplines. The analytical tools deployed in this task incorporate core principles from several behavioral disciplines. The proposed framework recognizes evolutionary theory, covering both genetic and cultural evolution, as the integrating principle of behavioral science. Moreover, if decision theory and game theory are broadened to encompass other-regarding preferences, they become capable of modeling all aspects of decision making, including those normally considered “psychological,” “sociological,” or “anthropological.” The mind as a decision-making organ then becomes the organizing principle of psychology.
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
The pricing of options and corporate liabilities
Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260062 · Cited by 29,074
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Becker, G. S. (1991) · doi:10.4159/9780674020665 · Cited by 10,565
A neural substrate of prediction and reward
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593 · Cited by 9,388
Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ?
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 · Cited by 8,599 · cited 1×
“) The Theory of Mind (TOM) mechanism is a specialization that causes humans to interpret behavior in terms of unobservable mental entities – beliefs and desires (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985).”
BackgroundFeeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Cited by
The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behavioral modernity
Hill, K., Barton, M., & Hurtado, A. M. (2009) · Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.20224 · Cited by 387
Natural Information Processing Systems
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1177/147470490600400135 · Cited by 279
Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change
Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. D. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13001593 · Cited by 255
Morality: An Evolutionary Account
Krebs, D. L. (2008) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x · Cited by 240
Strong Reciprocity and the Roots of Human Morality
Gintis, H., Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2008) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0067-y · Cited by 233
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gintis, H.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W1985332633
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 22.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0140525x07000581
- The paper
- Gintis, H. (2007). A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x07000581
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.
