1,721,301 research outputs found

    Dishonest online: A distinction between observable and unobservable lying

    No full text
    http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf

    Measuring time preferences: Comparing methods and evaluating the magnitude effect

    No full text
    The discount rate is of great importance for all decisions in an intertemporal context. This study experimentally investigates the time preferences of German farmers and students by comparing two methods of discount rate elicitation. The first method is based on the elicitation of time preference and risk attitude using two multiple price lists. Afterward, the discount rate is estimated by taking the risk attitude into account. The second method also uses a multiple price list approach; however, in contrast to the first method, probability discounting is applied for eliciting time preference. In this case, the individual risk attitude is not elicited separately, and no assumptions regarding the shape of the utility function are necessary. Both methods are conducted in two magnitude treatments, using 100 and 300 as a baseline. The results reveal that the ascertained discount rates of both methods are different for farmers in both magnitude treatments and for students in the 300 treatment. This result contradicts previous findings on the comparison of these two methods. Furthermore, only the method based on the measurement of time preference and risk attitude separately reveals significant responsiveness to the magnitude of the experimental payout. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.German Research Foundation (DFG

    Anchoring effects in experimental discount rate elicitation

    No full text
    Discount rates are often elicited using incentivized or hypothetical multiple price lists. We conduct two multiple price lists according to Coller and Williams (Experimental Economics 2: 107-127, 1999) with varying ranges of larger-later payments. Participants carry out both tasks and are randomly assigned to a task order as well as to a payment or no-payment treatment. Our results indicate that the range of the first completed task anchors discount rate decisions. Participants who begin the task with the lower range of the larger-later payments stated lower discount rates than participants who start with the task containing a wider range. Paying monetary incentives does not influence the detected anchor effect.German Research Foundation (DFG

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore