Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32742683›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

Preferences and constraints: the value of economic games for studying human behaviour.

Anne C Pisor, Matthew M Gervais, Benjamin G Purzycki, Cody T Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. No strong evidence for universal gender differences in the development of cooperative behaviour across societies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Networks of reliable reputations and cooperation: a review.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anne C PisorDepartment of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5780-4542
Matthew M GervaisCentre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2532-2722
Benjamin G PurzyckiDepartment of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9595-7360
Cody T RossDepartment of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0067-4799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As economic games have spread from experimental economics to other social sciences, so too have critiques of their usefulness for drawing inferences about the 'real world'. What these criticisms often miss is that games can be used to reveal individuals' private preferences in ways that observational and interview data cannot; furthermore, economic games can be designed such that they

Indexed as

cross-cultural comparisonsexperimentslaboratory in the fieldmethodsreplicationsocial science

Identifiers

PMID32742683
PMCPMC7353969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.