Reference health
Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories
88/88 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-03
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
21 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 88 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00031-9
Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters
resolves10.1111/1468-0262.00302
Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism
resolves10.2307/2951527
An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems
resolves10.2307/2946655
Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias
resolves10.1006/obhd.1995.1068
When Social Outcomes Aren′t Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences
resolves10.1111/j.1465-7295.1999.tb01415.x
RAISING THE STAKES IN THE ULTIMATUM GAME: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIA
resolves10.2307/136209
Fairness in Public Good Provision: An Investigation of Preferences for Equality and Proportionality
resolves10.1257/aer.89.4.703
Does Where You Stand Depend on Where You Sit? Tithing Donations and Self-Serving Beliefs
resolves10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00141-9
Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution
resolves10.1016/0167-2681(93)90027-M
On the fairness of pricing — An empirical survey among the general population
resolves10.1023/A:1010335530271
Outcome, Process and Power in Direct Democracy – New Econometric Results
resolves10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00119-2
Cross-cultural equity evaluations: A questionnaire-experimental approach
resolves10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60308-4
Content and Discontent: Indications and Implications of Domain Specificity in Preferential Decision Making
resolves10.1086/257678
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
resolves10.2307/1959090
Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory
resolves10.1257/aer.90.4.973
Does Culture Matter in Economic Behavior? Ultimatum Game Bargaining Among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon
resolves10.1257/aer.91.2.73
In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies
resolves10.1086/467773
Entitlements, Rights, and Fairness: An Experimental Examination of Subjects' Concepts of Distributive Justice
resolves10.1006/game.1996.0026
Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs
resolves10.1080/00207598808247752
UNIVERSALISM IN LAY CONCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: A CROSS‐CULTURAL EXAMINATION
resolves10.1006/game.1995.1025
Outside Options and Social Comparison in Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiments
resolves10.1257/aer.90.4.1072
Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions
resolves10.1016/1053-5357(92)90026-4
Decisions and perceptions of recipients in ultimatum bargaining games
resolves10.1002/acp.2350050305
Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys
resolves10.2307/3033962
Norms Concerning Distributive Justice: Are Needs Taken Into Consideration in Allocation Decisions?
resolves10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01548.x
Validation of a Vignette Simulation of Assault on Nurses by Patients
resolves10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1267
Factors affecting allocation to needy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison.
resolves10.1037/h0092976
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
resolves10.1006/game.1997.0630
More Is Better, But Fair Is Fair: Tipping in Dictator and Ultimatum Games
resolves10.1111/j.1467-6435.1991.tb01758.x
Interindividual Differences in Opinions about Distributive Justice
resolves10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J
Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice
resolves10.2307/2998575
Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic
resolves10.1111/0162-895X.00263
Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting
The 21 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedp_5
no DOI — not checkedp_13
no DOI — not checkedp_15
no DOI — not checkedp_27
no DOI — not checkedp_37
no DOI — not checkedp_41
no DOI — not checkedp_51
no DOI — not checkedp_62
no DOI — not checkedp_88
no DOI — not checkedp_90
no DOI — not checkedp_111
no DOI — not checkedp_114
no DOI — not checkedp_121
no DOI — not checkedp_135
no DOI — not checkedp_142
no DOI — not checkedp_146
no DOI — not checkedp_155
no DOI — not checkedp_156
no DOI — not checkedp_158
no DOI — not checkedp_167
no DOI — not checkedp_178
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-03 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1257/002205103771800013"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1257/002205103771800013/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1257/002205103771800013)