Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42410286›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

QualGames: A Qualtrics implementation and a database of behavioral game theory tasks.

Shengchuang Feng, Nadhilla Melia, Akshay Abraham, Yuan Ni Chan, Li Ling Lee, Jia Ying Pei, Hui Shan Yap, David Hung, John Suckling, Chew Lee Teo and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Shengchuang FengCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. shengchuang.feng@ntu.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3344-6984
Nadhilla MeliaCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Akshay AbrahamCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Yuan Ni ChanCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Li Ling LeeCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Jia Ying PeiCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Hui Shan YapCentre for Research and Development in Learning, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
David HungNational Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
John SucklingDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Chew Lee TeoNational Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Trevor RobbinsDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Barbara SahakianDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Zoe KourtziDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Victoria LeongSchool of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Annabel ChenSchool of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Henriette HendriksDepartment of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Georgios ChristopoulosNanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. cgeorgios@ntu.edu.sg.
and the CLIC Phase 1 Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral decision-making tasks are widely used to study individual and social preferences, including risk-taking, temporal discounting, and cooperation-related choices such as social value orientation, trust, and reciprocity, as well as more complex social behaviors examined through social dilemma and coordination games. These tasks are often administered along with typical survey questionnaires. However, scripting complexity limits their implementation on some popular online survey platforms (e.g., Qualtrics), which are commonly used to deploy studies across large populations. Here, we share a detailed experimental protocol and the corresponding source code, which enable the modular implementation of a decision-making battery in Qualtrics, including tasks such as the social value orientation, prisoner's dilemma, trust game, and baseline nonsocial risk preference tasks. Data from 392 participants in Singapore and 94 participants in the United States (US) were collected and analyzed to validate the task battery. Their responses exhibited good quality and high convergent and divergent validity across different tasks and aligned with basic predictions of behavioral decision theory (e.g., the reflection effect and loss aversion) and social decision-making theories (e.g., inequity aversion and betrayal aversion). Responses from 314 Singapore participants and 94 US participants are shared (with their consent). The source code for the task batteries could be used to expand the database and for hypothesis testing in decision-making research. The data could facilitate comparisons with other populations and the development of simulated agents to address logistical challenges in asynchronous experiments. Overall, we go beyond mere code and data sharing to foster large-scale behavioral game theory research.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGame TheorySocial BehaviorDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleRisk-TakingTrustDecision-makingQualtricsRisk preferencesSocial preferencesTrust

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.