CIVIL ENGINEERING 365 ALL ABOUT CIVIL ENGINEERING


  • 1.

    Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 637–644 (2018).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E. & Donnellan, M. B. Making replication mainstream. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e120 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen, J. D. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300, 1755–1758 (2003).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Henrich, J. et al. Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Jensen, K., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game. Science 318, 107–109 (2007).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Hartley, C. & Fisher, S. Do children with autism spectrum disorder share fairly and reciprocally? J. Autism Dev. Disord. 48, 2714–2726 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    O’Callaghan, C. et al. Fair play: social norm compliance failures in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 139, 204–216 (2015).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Morewedge, C. K., Krishnamurti, T. & Ariely, D. Focused on fairness: alcohol intoxication increases the costly rejection of inequitable rewards. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 50, 15–20 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Kirk, U., Downar, J. & Montague, P. R. Interoception drives increased rational decision-making in meditators playing the ultimatum game. Front. Neurosci. 5, 49 (2011).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D. & Robbins, T. W. Serotonin modulates behavioral reactions to unfairness. Science 320, 1739–1739 (2008).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Krajbich, I., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L. & Camerer, C. F. Economic games quantify diminished sense of guilt in patients with damage to the prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 29, 2188–2192 (2009).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Koenigs, M. & Tranel, D. Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game. J. Neurosci. 27, 951–956 (2007).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Dehaene, S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  • 16.

    Dehaene, S. & Mehler, J. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition 43, 1–29 (1992).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Frydman, C. & Jin, L. Efficient coding and risky choice. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3270773 (2019).

  • 18.

    Simon, H. A. Invariants of human behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 1–20 (1990).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Smith, V. L. The two faces of Adam Smith. South. Econ. J. 65, 2–19 (1998).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Smith, A. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Vol. 1 (W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776).

  • 21.

    Sobel, J. Generous actors, selfish actions: markets with other-regarding preferences. Int. Rev. Econ. 56, 3–16 (2009).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Dufwenberg, M., Heidhues, P., Kirchsteiger, G., Riedel, F. & Sobel, J. Other-regarding preferences in general equilibrium. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78, 613–639 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 23.

    Chamberlin, E. H. An experimental imperfect market. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 95–108 (1948).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Smith, V. L. An experimental study of competitive market behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 70, 111–137 (1962).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Plott, C. R. & Smith, V. L. An experimental examination of two exchange institutions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 45, 133–153 (1978).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Smith, V. L. & Walker, J. M. Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics. Econ. Inq. 31, 245–261 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Hertwig, R. & Ortmann, A. Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 383–403 (2001).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Camerer, C. F. & Hogarth, R. M. The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital–labor–production framework. J. Risk. Uncertain. 19, 7–42 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Tompkinson, P. & Bethwaite, J. The ultimatum game: raising the stakes. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 27, 439–451 (1995).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. & Schwarze, B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 367–388 (1982).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Tisserand, J.-C. et al. Ultimatum game: a meta-analysis of the past three decades of experimental research. In Proceedings of International Academic Conferences, 0802032 (International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, 2014).

  • 32.

    Holt, C.A. in Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (eds Kagel, J. & Roth, A. E.) 349–443 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).

  • 33.

    Davis, D.D. & Holt, C.A. Experimental Economics (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993).

  • 34.

    Kagel, J. & Roth, A.E. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).

  • 35.

    Kagel, J., Roth, A.E. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 2 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2015).

  • 36.

    Plott, C.R. & Smith, V.L. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1 (North-Holland, 2008).

  • 37.

    Kagel, J.H. in Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (eds Kagel, J. & Roth, A. E.) 501–585 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).

  • 38.

    Cason, T.N. & Friedman, D. in The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence (eds Friedman, D. & Rust, J.) 253–283 (Addison-Wesley, 1993).

  • 39.

    Smith, V. L. Economics in the laboratory. J. Econ. Perspect. 8, 113–131 (1994).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 40.

    Gjerstad, S. The competitive market paradox. J. Econ. Dynam. Control 31, 1753–1780 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Cason, T. N. & Friedman, D. Price formation in double auction markets. J. Econ. Dynam. Control 20, 1307–1337 (1996).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Noussair, C. N., Plott, C. R. & Riezman, R. G. An experimental investigation of the patterns of international trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 85, 462–491 (1995).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Ketcham, J., Smith, V. L. & Williams, A. W. A comparison of posted-offer and double-auction pricing institutions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 51, 595–614 (1984).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Easley, D. & Ledyard, J.O. in The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence (eds Friedman, D. & Rust, J.) 63–97 (Addison-Wesley, 1993).

  • 45.

    Wilson, R.B. in Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory (ed. Feiwel, G. R.) 375–414 (Springer, 1987).

  • 46.

    Friedman, D. A simple testable model of double auction markets. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 15, 47–70 (1991).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Gode, D. K. & Sunder, S. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. J. Polit. Econ. 101, 119–137 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    Cliff, D. & Bruten, J. Less than human: simple adaptive trading agents for CDA markets. IFAC Proc. Vol. 31, 117–122 (1998).

  • 49.

    Camerer, C.F. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).

  • 50.

    Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R. & van de Kuilen, G. Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Exp. Econ. 7, 171–188 (2004).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Cooper, D. J. & Dutcher, E. G. The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study. Exp. Econ. 14, 519–546 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Bolton, G. E. & Ockenfels, A. Erc: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 166–193 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Blount, S. When social outcomes aren’t fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 63, 131–144 (1995).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Rabin, M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 56.

    Falk, A. & Fischbacher, U. A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ. Behav. 54, 293–315 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 6, 347–369 (1994).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Levine, D. K. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev. Econ. Dynam. 1, 593–622 (1998).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 59.

    Backus, M., Blake, T., Larsen, B. & Tadelis, S. Sequential bargaining in the field: evidence from millions of online bargaining interactions.Q. J. Econ. 135, 1319–1361 (2020).

  • 60.

    Chabris, C. F., Morris, C. L., Taubinsky, D., Laibson, D. & Schuldt, J. P. The allocation of time in decision-making. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 7, 628–637 (2009).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Konovalov, A. & Krajbich, I. Revealed strength of preference: inference from response times. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14, 381–394 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Krajbich, I., Oud, B. & Fehr, E. Benefits of neuroeconomic modeling: new policy interventions and predictors of preference. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 501–506 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    Andreoni, J. & Bernheim, B. D. Social image and the 50–50 norm: a theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 77, 1607–1636 (2009).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Bernheim, B. D. & Severinov, S. Bequests as signals: an explanation for the equal division puzzle. J. Polit. Econ. 111, 733–764 (2003).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 65.

    Bauman, Y. & Rose, E. Selection or indoctrination: why do economics students donate less than the rest? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 79, 318–327 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 66.

    DerSimonian, R. & Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 7, 177–188 (1986).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557 (2003).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 68.

    Higgins, J. P. T. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 69.

    Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M. & Zamir, S. Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am. Econ. Rev. 81, 1068–1095 (1991).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 70.

    Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 71.

    Ebersole, C. R. et al. Many labs 3: evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 67, 68–82 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 72.

    Klein, R. A. et al. Investigating variation in replicability: a many labs replication project. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142–152 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 73.

    Klein, R. A. et al. Many labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across sample and setting. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 443–490 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 74.

    Henrich, J. Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 973–979 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 75.

    Henrich, J. et al. Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 76.

    Henrich, J. et al. Economic man in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 795–815 (2005).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 77.

    Camerer, C. F. & Thaler, R. H. Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 209–219 (1995).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 78.

    Smith, V. L. Experimental economics: induced value theory. Am. Econ. Rev. 66, 274–279 (1976).


    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *