IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/gamebe/v87y2014icp100-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Intrinsic and instrumental reciprocity: An experimental study

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Heufer, Jan & van Bruggen, Paul & Yang, Jingni, 2020. "Giving According to Agreement," Discussion Paper 2020-035, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  2. De Luca, Giacomo & Sekeris, Petros G. & Spengler, Dominic E., 2018. "Can violence harm cooperation? Experimental evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 342-359.
  3. 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.
  4. Heufer, Jan & van Bruggen, Paul & Yang, Jingni, 2020. "Giving According to Agreement," Other publications TiSEM 19e0d60e-efcb-4e7c-b163-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  5. Pablo Hernandez-Lagos & Dylan Minor & Dana Sisak, 2017. "Do people who care about others cooperate more? Experimental evidence from relative incentive pay," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 809-835, December.
  6. Karl H.Schlag, 2015. "Who gives Direction to Statistical Testing? Best Practice meets Mathematically Correct Tests," Vienna Economics Papers vie1512, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
  7. Andrew Kloosterman, 2019. "An Experimental Study of Public Information in the Asymmetric Partnership Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(3), pages 663-690, January.
  8. Matthias Fahn, 2019. "Reciprocity in dynamic employment relationships," CESifo Working Paper Series 7634, CESifo.
  9. Drazen, Allan & Ozbay, Erkut, 2016. "Does “Being Chosen to Lead†Induce Non-Selfish Behavior? Experimental Evidence on Reciprocity," CEPR Discussion Papers 11338, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. Mengel, Friederike & Orlandi, Ludovica & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2022. "Match length realization and cooperation in indefinitely repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
  11. Andrew Kloosterman, 2020. "Cooperation in stochastic games: a prisoner’s dilemma experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 447-467, June.
  12. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2016. "Does strategic kindness crowd out prosocial behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 1-11.
  13. Karl H.Schlag, 2015. "Who gives Direction to Statistical Testing? Best Practice meets Mathematically Correct Tests," Vienna Economics Papers 1512, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
  14. Takafumi Yamakawa & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2016. "Detecting motives for cooperation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 500-512, June.
  15. Anujit Chakraborty, 2022. "Motives Behind Cooperation in Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," Working Papers 353, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  16. Lin, Wanchuan & Meng, Juanjuan & Weng, Xi, 2020. "Formal insurance and informal risk sharing dynamics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 837-863.
  17. Matthias Fahn & Anne Schade & Katharina Schüßler, 2017. "What Drives Reciprocal Behavior? The Optimal Provision of Incentives over the Course of Careers," CESifo Working Paper Series 6635, CESifo.
  18. Fahn, Matthias & Schade, Anne & Schüßler, Katharina, 2017. "Gift exchange vs. repeated interaction as a source of reciprocal behavior," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168150, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  19. Hyndman, Kyle & Müller, Rudolf, 2020. "The role of incentives in dynamic favour exchange: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 83-96.
  20. Ernesto Reuben & Sigrid Suetens, 2018. "Instrumental Reciprocity as an Error," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, September.
  21. Orhun, A. Yeşim, 2018. "Perceived motives and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 436-451.
  22. Chakraborty, Anujit, 2023. "Motives behind cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 105-132.
  23. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2020. "Why should majority voting be unfair?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 281-295.
  24. Michael Rivera & Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar & Tony Petrucci, 2021. "Are Traditional Performance Reviews Outdated? An Empirical Analysis on Continuous, Real-Time Feedback in the Workplace," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 517-540, June.
  25. Guillaume R. Fréchette & Sevgi Yuksel, 2017. "Infinitely repeated games in the laboratory: four perspectives on discounting and random termination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 279-308, June.
  26. Galanis, S. & Ioannou, C. & Kotronis, S., 2019. "Information Aggregation Under Ambiguity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20/05, Department of Economics, City University London.
  27. Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon, 2018. "Investing in communication: An experimental study of communication in a relational contract setting," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-96.
  28. Reuben, E. & Suetens, Sigrid, 2018. "Instrumental reciprocity as an error," Other publications TiSEM bb75c476-bc08-4d64-b1b0-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  29. Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Trust and Disintermediation: Evidence from an Online Freelance Marketplace," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 794-807, February.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.