Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).
Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).
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).
Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E. & Donnellan, M. B. Making replication mainstream. Behav. Brain Sci. 41, e120 (2018).
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).
Henrich, J. et al. Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006).
Jensen, K., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game. Science 318, 107–109 (2007).
Hartley, C. & Fisher, S. Do children with autism spectrum disorder share fairly and reciprocally? J. Autism Dev. Disord. 48, 2714–2726 (2018).
O’Callaghan, C. et al. Fair play: social norm compliance failures in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 139, 204–216 (2015).
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).
Kirk, U., Downar, J. & Montague, P. R. Interoception drives increased rational decision-making in meditators playing the ultimatum game. Front. Neurosci. 5, 49 (2011).
Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D. & Robbins, T. W. Serotonin modulates behavioral reactions to unfairness. Science 320, 1739–1739 (2008).
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).
Koenigs, M. & Tranel, D. Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game. J. Neurosci. 27, 951–956 (2007).
Dehaene, S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Dehaene, S. & Mehler, J. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition 43, 1–29 (1992).
Frydman, C. & Jin, L. Efficient coding and risky choice. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3270773 (2019).
Simon, H. A. Invariants of human behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 1–20 (1990).
Smith, V. L. The two faces of Adam Smith. South. Econ. J. 65, 2–19 (1998).
Smith, A. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Vol. 1 (W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776).
Sobel, J. Generous actors, selfish actions: markets with other-regarding preferences. Int. Rev. Econ. 56, 3–16 (2009).
Dufwenberg, M., Heidhues, P., Kirchsteiger, G., Riedel, F. & Sobel, J. Other-regarding preferences in general equilibrium. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78, 613–639 (2011).
Chamberlin, E. H. An experimental imperfect market. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 95–108 (1948).
Smith, V. L. An experimental study of competitive market behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 70, 111–137 (1962).
Plott, C. R. & Smith, V. L. An experimental examination of two exchange institutions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 45, 133–153 (1978).
Smith, V. L. & Walker, J. M. Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics. Econ. Inq. 31, 245–261 (1993).
Hertwig, R. & Ortmann, A. Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 383–403 (2001).
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).
Tompkinson, P. & Bethwaite, J. The ultimatum game: raising the stakes. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 27, 439–451 (1995).
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. & Schwarze, B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 367–388 (1982).
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).
Holt, C.A. in Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (eds Kagel, J. & Roth, A. E.) 349–443 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).
Davis, D.D. & Holt, C.A. Experimental Economics (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993).
Kagel, J. & Roth, A.E. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).
Kagel, J., Roth, A.E. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 2 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2015).
Plott, C.R. & Smith, V.L. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1 (North-Holland, 2008).
Kagel, J.H. in Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 1 (eds Kagel, J. & Roth, A. E.) 501–585 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).
Cason, T.N. & Friedman, D. in The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence (eds Friedman, D. & Rust, J.) 253–283 (Addison-Wesley, 1993).
Smith, V. L. Economics in the laboratory. J. Econ. Perspect. 8, 113–131 (1994).
Gjerstad, S. The competitive market paradox. J. Econ. Dynam. Control 31, 1753–1780 (2007).
Cason, T. N. & Friedman, D. Price formation in double auction markets. J. Econ. Dynam. Control 20, 1307–1337 (1996).
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).
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).
Easley, D. & Ledyard, J.O. in The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence (eds Friedman, D. & Rust, J.) 63–97 (Addison-Wesley, 1993).
Wilson, R.B. in Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory (ed. Feiwel, G. R.) 375–414 (Springer, 1987).
Friedman, D. A simple testable model of double auction markets. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 15, 47–70 (1991).
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).
Cliff, D. & Bruten, J. Less than human: simple adaptive trading agents for CDA markets. IFAC Proc. Vol. 31, 117–122 (1998).
Camerer, C.F. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).
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).
Cooper, D. J. & Dutcher, E. G. The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study. Exp. Econ. 14, 519–546 (2011).
Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999).
Bolton, G. E. & Ockenfels, A. Erc: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 166–193 (2000).
Blount, S. When social outcomes aren’t fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 63, 131–144 (1995).
Rabin, M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993).
Falk, A. & Fischbacher, U. A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ. Behav. 54, 293–315 (2006).
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 6, 347–369 (1994).
Levine, D. K. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev. Econ. Dynam. 1, 593–622 (1998).
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).
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).
Konovalov, A. & Krajbich, I. Revealed strength of preference: inference from response times. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14, 381–394 (2019).
Krajbich, I., Oud, B. & Fehr, E. Benefits of neuroeconomic modeling: new policy interventions and predictors of preference. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 501–506 (2014).
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).
Bernheim, B. D. & Severinov, S. Bequests as signals: an explanation for the equal division puzzle. J. Polit. Econ. 111, 733–764 (2003).
Bauman, Y. & Rose, E. Selection or indoctrination: why do economics students donate less than the rest? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 79, 318–327 (2011).
DerSimonian, R. & Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 7, 177–188 (1986).
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557 (2003).
Higgins, J. P. T. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).
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).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).
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).
Klein, R. A. et al. Investigating variation in replicability: a many labs replication project. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142–152 (2014).
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).
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).
Henrich, J. et al. Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).
Henrich, J. et al. Economic man in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 795–815 (2005).
Camerer, C. F. & Thaler, R. H. Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 209–219 (1995).
Smith, V. L. Experimental economics: induced value theory. Am. Econ. Rev. 66, 274–279 (1976).