[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/beexfi/v23y2019icp59-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

zBrac — A multilanguage tool for z-Tree

Author

Listed:
  • Saral, Ali Seyhun
  • Schröter, Anna Marie
Abstract
z-Tree has been a standard software for running economic experiments. It would not be wrong to attribute part of its success to its simple and intuitive design. However, when it comes to flexibility, the software is arguably not as strong.

Suggested Citation

  • Saral, Ali Seyhun & Schröter, Anna Marie, 2019. "zBrac — A multilanguage tool for z-Tree," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 59-63.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:23:y:2019:i:c:p:59-63
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635018302661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crosetto, Paolo & Weisel, Ori & Winter, Fabian, 2019. "A flexible z-Tree and oTree implementation of the Social Value Orientation Slider Measure," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 46-53.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luciano Andreozzi & Matteo Ploner & Ali Seyhun Saral, 2019. "The Stability of Conditional Cooperation: Egoism Trumps Reciprocity in Social Dilemmas," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aidas Masiliunas, 2021. "Market Concentration and Incentives to Collude in Cournot Oligopoly Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 1131, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    2. Andraszewicz, Sandra & Friedman, Jason & Kaszás, Dániel & Hölscher, Christoph, 2023. "Zurich Trading Simulator (ZTS) — A dynamic trading experimental tool for oTree," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Crosetto, Paolo & Güth, Werner, 2021. "What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Weisel, Ori & Zultan, Ro’i, 2021. "Perceptions of conflict: Parochial cooperation and outgroup spite revisited," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 57-71.
    5. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Pascal Langenbach, 2020. "Fines versus Damages: Experimental Evidence on Care Investments," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Mar 2024.
    6. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2019. "Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 147-163.
    7. Ederer, Florian & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2017. "Promises and expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 161-178.
    8. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    9. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    10. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    11. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    12. Radu Vranceanu & Damien Besancenot & Delphine Dubart, 2014. "Can Rumors and Other Uninformative Messages Cause Illiquidity ?," CEPN Working Papers hal-00841167, HAL.
    13. Basteck, Christian & Klaus, Bettina & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "How lotteries in school choice help to level the playing field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 198-237.
    14. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    16. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    17. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-02050514, HAL.
    18. Morone, A. & Morone, P. & Germani, A.R., 2014. "Individual and group behaviour in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-7.
    19. Falk Armin & Kosfeld Michael, 2012. "It's all about Connections: Evidence on Network Formation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-36, September.
    20. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:23:y:2019:i:c:p:59-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-behavioral-and-experimental-finance .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.