The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study
Open accessAbstract
We present a lab-field experiment designed to systematically assess the external validity of social preferences elicited in a variety of experimental games. We do this by comparing behavior in the different games with several behaviors elicited in the field and with self-reported behaviors exhibited in the past, using the same sample of participants. Our results show that the experimental social preference games do a poor job explaining both social behaviors in the field and social behaviors from the past. We also include a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous literature on the external validity of social preference games. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908 . This paper was accepted by John List, behavioral economics.
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
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Altruistic punishment in humans
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415137a · Cited by 5,616
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 2×
“Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false.”
BackgroundCooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209
Cited by
Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?
RIEDL, A., & SMEETS, P. (2017) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.12547 · Cited by 1,378
Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges
Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M., & de Pol, I. V. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4 · Cited by 135
Does Observability Affect Prosociality?
Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.0116 · Cited by 122
Parochial altruism: What it is and why it varies
Pisor, A. C., & Ross, C. T. (2024) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005 · Cited by 38
Susceptibility to peer influence in adolescents: Associations between psychophysiology and behavior
Meehan, Z. M., Hubbard, J. A., Moore, C. C., & Mlawer, F. (2024) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579422000967 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Galizzi, M. M., & Navarro-Martinez, D.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 976-1002
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2148603978
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 51.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908
- The paper
- Galizzi, M. M., & Navarro-Martinez, D. (2019). On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908
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.
