Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):417-418 (2001)
|Abstract||The use of high hypothetical payoffs has been justified by the realism and relevance of large monetary consequences and by the impracticality of making high cash payments. We argue that subjects may not be able to imagine how they would behave in high payoff situations.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Roger R. Straughan (1975). Hypothetical Moral Situations. Journal of Moral Education 4 (3):183-189.
Robert M. Veatch (2003). Why Liberals Should Accept Financial Incentives for Organ Procurement. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (1):19-36.
Arthur P. Brief, Janet M. Dukerich, Paul R. Brown & Joan F. Brett (1996). What's Wrong with the Treadway Commission Report? Experimental Analyses of the Effects of Personal Values and Codes of Conduct on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (2):183 - 198.
Ruth W. Grant & Jeremy Sugarman (2004). Ethics in Human Subjects Research: Do Incentives Matter? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):717 – 738.
Susanne Bobzien (1997). The Stoics on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments. Phronesis 42 (3):299-312.
Ruth W. Grant (2002). The Ethics of Incentives: Historical Origins and Contemporary Understandings. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):111-139.
Anton Kühberger (2001). Why Use Real and Hypothetical Payoffs? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):419-420.
Daniel Read (2005). Monetary Incentives, What Are They Good For? Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):265-276.
J. Bradford de Long (1998). It Doesn't Work. Critical Review 12 (1-2):59-69.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #202,056 of 549,625 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?