Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games

By Catherine C. Eckel, Philip J. Grossman. 2001

536 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4a00d46ed29c63baef71338eb9113c4cd0df5bdf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

What's in a Name? Anonymity and Social Distance in Dictator and Ultimatum Games (2008, background): “They argue that traditional non-cooperative game theory is about strangers with no shared history, so that we should follow this guideline in testing the theory.”
THE DECISION MAKER MATTERS: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP BEHAVIOUR IN EXPERIMENTAL BEAUTY- (2005, unknown): “…literature has concentrated on the impact of different characteristics of the decision maker, among which the differences between male and female decision makers have been most thoroughly studied (see, e.g., Eckel and Grossman, 1998, 2001; Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Gneezy et al., 2003).”
GENDER MATCHING AND COMPETITIVENESS: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE (2013, unknown): “Gneezy et al. (2009) show that in matriarchal societies in India women are more likely to compete than men, whereas they found the opposite in patriarcal tribes in Tanzania.”
Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity (2003, background): “See also the papers by Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001), Croson and Buchan (1999), Eckel and Grossman (1996, 1998, 2000b), Scharlemann et al (2001) and Solnick (2000) for evidence of gender differences in a variety of economic transactions.”
Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments (2007, background): “e.g., Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Eckel and Grossman, 1998, 2001; Sutter et al.,”
Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising (2004, background): “…have already identified the importance of culture (Roth, Prasnikar, Okuno-Fujiwara, and Zamir, 1995), gender (Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Eckel and Grossman, 2001; Eckel and Grossman, 1998), social capital (Carter and Castillo, 2002; Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman and Soutter, 2000), and…”
Managing Diversity by Creating Team Identity (2005, background): “Eckel and Grossman (2001) find that women are more accepting of offers from other women, ceteris paribus, in ultimatum games, a result that is likely to be based on gender-identified expectations.”
Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? (2003, unknown): “There is a considerable literature examining sex differences in cooperation or altruism (see Eckel and Grossman, 2001b, for a review).”
Gender and Competition (2011, background): “Finally, it could be that women and men seek information at a different rate, or in different instances [e.g., individuals who interpret information as indicative of self-worth may be less likely to seek information (Dweck 2000, and references therein)].”
Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect (2008, unknown): “…in have established gender differences in areas such as charitable giving, tax morale, corruption, bargaining or household decision making (Brown-Kruse and Hummels, 1993; Nowell and Tinkler, 1994; Andreoni and Vesterlund, 2001; Eckel and Grossman, 2001; Torgler, 2007, Torgler and Valev 2007).”
Children's altruistic behavior in the dictator game (2007, background): “…al. (2003) study, however, researchers have not utilized the DG. Results from economic games with adults yield inconsistent sex differences, with females behaving more altruistically in some studies (e.g., Eckel & Grossman, 1998, 2001) but not in others (e.g., Gurven, 2004; Henrich et al., 2005).”
Status and Distrust: The Relevance of Inequality and Betrayal Aversion (2007, unknown): “Finally, African–Americans are found to be more likely to reject offers below an equal split in the Ultimatum Game (Eckel & Grossman, 2001), which could be due to concerns about equality but also to reciprocal preferences (Rabin, 1993).”