Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Context and Interpretation in Laboratory Experiments: The Case of Reciprocity

Contents:

Author Info

  • Maria Vittoria Levati

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena)

  • Topi Miettinen

    (Aalto School of Economics, Alto)

  • Birendra K. Rai

    ()
    (Monash Univeristy, Clayton)

Abstract

The existing literature acknowledges that a mismatch between the experimenter's and the subjects' models of an experimental task can adversely affect the interpretation of data from laboratory experiments. We discuss why the two common experimental designs (between-subjects and within-subjects) used to conduct experiments may fail to sufficiently account for this concern. An alternative design for laboratory experiments is proposed which may alleviate this concern especially in studies of social preferences. The proposed design is used to answer some questions that have attracted continued attention in the literature on social preferences in general and reciprocity in particular.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://pubdb.wiwi.uni-jena.de/pdf/wp_2010_090.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics in its series Jena Economic Research Papers with number 2010-090.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 14 Dec 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2010-090

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA
Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Web page: http://www.jenecon.de
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Experimental design; Context; Trust game;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Smith, Vernon L., 2010. "Theory and experiment: What are the questions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 3-15, January.
  2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
  3. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
  4. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "Measuring Beliefs in an Experimental Lost Wallet Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 163-182, February.
  5. Douglas Dyer & John Kagel, 1996. "Bidding in common value auctions: How the commercial construction industry corrects for the winner's curse," Framed Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00144, The Field Experiments Website.
  6. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
  7. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers 1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Wilson, Bart J., 2008. "Language games of reciprocity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 365-377, November.
  9. James C. Cox, 2009. "Some Issues of Methods, Theories, and Experimental Designs," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University 2009-02, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  10. Eckel, Catherine C. & Wilson, Rick K., 2004. "Is trust a risky decision?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 447-465, December.
  11. Cox, James C., 2004. "How to identify trust and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 260-281, February.
  12. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
  13. Vernon L. Smith, 2003. "Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 465-508, June.
  14. David K Levine, 1997. "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2047, David K. Levine.
  15. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
  16. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & David H. Reiley, Jr., 2009. "What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," NBER Working Papers 15609, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Bolton, Gary, 2010. "Testing models and internalizing context: A comment on "Theory and Experiment: What are the questions?"," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 16-20, January.
  18. Dana, Jason & Cain, Daylian M. & Dawes, Robyn M., 2006. "What you don't know won't hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 193-201, July.
  19. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
  20. Charles Lambdin & Victoria A. Shaffer, 2009. "Are within-subjects designs transparent?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 554-566, December.
  21. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-60, June.
  22. Nicholas Bardsley, 2008. "Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 122-133, June.
  23. Blanco, Mariana & Engelmann, Dirk & Normann, Hans Theo, 2011. "A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 321-338, June.
  24. Gary Bolton & Jordi Brandts & Axel Ockenfels, 1998. "Measuring Motivations for the Reciprocal Responses Observed in a Simple Dilemma Game," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 207-219, December.
  25. Nava Ashraf & Iris Bohnet & Nikita Piankov, 2006. "Decomposing trust and trustworthiness," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 193-208, September.
  26. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," Working Papers, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University 02-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  27. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
  28. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115, pages 482-493.
  29. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2008. "Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 990-1008, June.
  30. Wilson, Bart J., 2010. "Social preferences aren't preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 77-82, January.
  31. Casari, Marco & Cason, Timothy N., 2009. "The strategy method lowers measured trustworthy behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 157-159, 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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Paichayontvijit, Tirnud & Shen, Lifeng, 2013. "Gender differences in trust and trustworthiness: Individuals, single sex and mixed sex groups," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 181-194.
  2. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2012. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economic Research Papers, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2010-090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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