IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/soceco/v64y2016icp28-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Smart or selfish – When smart guys finish nice

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. Chen Daniel L., 2019. "Law and Literature: Theory and Evidence on Empathy and Guile," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
  2. Julian Hackinger, 2024. "Cognitive ability and the house money effect in public goods games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 393-414, December.
  3. Eliza L. Y. Wong & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Annie W. L. Cheung & Amy Y. K. Wong & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2018. "Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 235-247, April.
  4. Grandjean, Gilles & Lefebvre, Mathieu & Mantovani, Marco, 2022. "Preferences and strategic behavior in public goods games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 171-185.
  5. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
  6. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Mata-Pérez, Esther & Ponti, Giovanni & Sartarelli, Marcello & Yu, Haihan & Zhukova, Vita, 2016. "Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 81-93.
  7. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
  8. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
  9. Hackinger, Julian, 2016. "Not All Income is the Same to Everyone: Cognitive Ability and the House Money Effect in Public Goods Games," MPRA Paper 70836, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  10. Merkel, Anna & Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for the role of subjective utility differences under time pressure," Working Papers 0627, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  11. Etienne Dagorn & David Masclet & Thierry Penard, 2022. "The Behavioral Determinants of School Achievement: A Lab in the Field Experiment in Middle School," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2022-05, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
  12. Peng, Hui-Chun, 2020. "Effect of cognitive ability on matching and rebate subsidies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 19-25.
  13. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
  14. Marianna Belloc & Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Simone D'Alessandro, 2017. "A Social Heuristics Hypothesis for the Stag Hunt: Fast- and Slow-Thinking Hunters in the Lab," CESifo Working Paper Series 6824, CESifo.
  15. Hannes Lang & Gregory DeAngelo & Michelle Bongard, 2018. "Explaining Public Goods Game Contributions with Rational Ability," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, June.
  16. Daniel Horn & Hubert Janos Kiss, 2018. "Which preferences associate with school performance?—Lessons from an exploratory study with university students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-32, February.
  17. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  18. Guo, Qingke & Sun, Peng & Cai, Minghang & Zhang, Xiling & Song, Kexin, 2019. "Why are smarter individuals more prosocial? A study on the mediating roles of empathy and moral identity," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-8.
  19. Balafoutas, Loukas & Jaber-Lopez, Tarek, 2018. "Impunity under pressure: On the role of emotions as a commitment device," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 112-114.
  20. Manja Gärtner & Robert Östling & Sebastian Tebbe, 2023. "Do we all coordinate in the long run?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 16-33, June.
  21. Yi Yang Teoh & Ziqing Yao & William A. Cunningham & Cendri A. Hutcherson, 2020. "Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
  22. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse, 2020. "Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences," Discussion Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
  23. Arvid Erlandsson & Artur Nilsson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll, 2018. "Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
  24. repec:osf:metaar:kvzg3_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
  25. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive abilities and economic behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-4.
  26. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2024. "Manipulating response times in the cognitive reflection test: Time delay boosts deliberation, time pressure hinders it," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.