IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login

Citations for "Do Wealth Differences Affect Fairness Considerations?"

by Olivier Armantier

For a complete description of this item, click here. For a RSS feed for citations of this item, click here.
as in new window

  1. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2006. "Induced heterogeneity in trust experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 223-235, September.
  2. van de Kuilen, G. & Wakker, P.P., 2011. "The midweight method to measure attitudes towards risk and ambiguity," Other publications TiSEM c58a6884-24cc-4cab-ae2f-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  3. Dickinson, David L. & Oxoby, Robert J., 2007. "Cognitive Dissonance, Pessimism, and Behavioral Spillover Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 2832, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  4. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
  5. Subhashish Modak Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon, 2012. "Income effect and altruism," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 12-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  6. Ben D'Exelle & Els Lecoutere & Bjorn Van Campenhout, 2010. "Social status and bargaining when resources are scarce: Evidence from a field lab experiment," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 10-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  7. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
  8. Diecidue, E. & Wakker, P.P. & Zeelenberg, M., 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti's betting-odds method to prospect theory," Other publications TiSEM ac35645a-7772-46fe-ba31-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  9. David Cooper & E. Dutcher, 2011. "The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 519-546, November.
  10. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2009. "An experimental study on individual choice, social welfare, and social preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 385-400, May.
  11. Jeroen Hinloopen & Wieland Mueller & Hans-Theo Normann, 2011. "Output Commitment through Product Bundling: Experimental Evidence," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-170/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 14 Jul 2013.
  12. Gianluca Grimalda & Anirban Kar & Eugenio Proto, 2012. "Everyone Wants a Chance: Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 2012/21, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
  13. Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Estimates of Own Lethal Risks and Anchoring Effects," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-14, CIRANO.
  14. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Jeon, Joo Young, 2014. "Impure altruism or inequality aversion?: An experimental investigation based on income effects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 143-150.
  15. Cochard François & Couprie Helene & Hopfensitz Astrid, 2009. "Do Spouses Cooperate? And If Not: Why?," THEMA Working Papers 2009-10, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
  16. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2011. "Paradoxes and Mechanisms for Choice under Risk," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-07, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2014.
  17. Gianandrea Staffiero & Filippos Exadaktylos & Antonio M. Espín, 2012. "Accepting Zero in the Ultimatum Game Does Not Reflect Selfish Preferences," Working Papers 201203, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.
  18. Fréchette, Guillaume R., 2009. "Learning in a multilateral bargaining experiment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 183-195, December.
  19. Olivier Armantier & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert Van der Klaauw & Basit Zafar, 2011. "Inflation expectations and behavior: Do survey respondents act on their beliefs?," Staff Reports 509, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  20. Fischer, Sven & Güth, Werner, 2012. "Effects of exclusion on acceptance in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1114.
  21. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
  22. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
  23. Sophie Clot & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez, 2014. "An experimental analysis from a taking game in Madagascar," Working Papers 14-02, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.
  24. McGee, Peter & Constantinides, Stelios, 2013. "Repeated play and gender in the ultimatum game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 121-126.
  25. Smith, Alexander, 2011. "Income inequality in the trust game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 54-56, April.
  26. Gianandrea Staffiero & Filippos Exadaktylos & Antonio M. Espín, 2013. "Accepting Zero in the Ultimatum Game: Selfish Nash Response?," ThE Papers 13/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.