IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/17-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cash versus Extra-Credit Incentives in Experimental Asset Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Tucker

    (University of Waikato)

  • Shuze Ding

    (Indiana University)

  • Volodymyr Lugovskyy

    (Indiana University)

  • Daniela Puzzello

    (Indiana University)

  • Arlington Williams

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

The research community in experimental economics has been increasingly encouraged to replicate studies and increase the sample size. While these suggestions have strong advantages, they also potentially increase the financial costs associated with data collection and, as a result, tamper the growth of experimental economics and limit the questions that may be addressed using experimental methods. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of extra-credit as a reward medium, since it is financially less taxing. We focus on experimental asset markets since data is more costly to collect for these experiments, for example, a market (consisting of 8 to 12 traders) is an observation. Our treatment variable is the reward medium, either extra-credit or cash. We compare bubble measures in the two treatments and we find that bubbles observed in the extra-credit sessions are not significantly different from bubbles observed in the cash sessions. These results suggest that extra-credit is an effective reward medium in experimental asset markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Tucker & Shuze Ding & Volodymyr Lugovskyy & Daniela Puzzello & Arlington Williams, 2017. "Cash versus Extra-Credit Incentives in Experimental Asset Markets," Working Papers in Economics 17/21, University of Waikato.
  • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:17/21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/1721.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luccasen, R. Andrew & Thomas, M. Kathleen, 2014. "Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 232-235.
    2. Jamal, Karim & Sunder, Shyam, 1991. "Money vs gaming: Effects of salient monetary payments in double oral auctions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 151-166, June.
    3. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    4. Pouget, Sebastien, 2007. "Financial market design and bounded rationality: An experiment," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 287-317, August.
    5. Baker II, Ronald J. & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 2009. "Matching contributions and the voluntary provision of a pure public good: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 122-134, May.
    6. Luigi Butera & John List, 2017. "An Economic Approach to Alleviate the Crisis of Confidence in Science: With an Application to the Public Goods Game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00608, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Kormendi, Roger C. & Plott, Charles R., 1982. "Committee decisions under alternative procedural rules : An experimental study applying a new non-monetary method of preference inducement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(2-3), pages 175-195.
    8. Ernan Haruvy & Yaron Lahav & Charles N. Noussair, 2007. "Traders' Expectations in Asset Markets: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1901-1920, December.
    9. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    10. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Budescu, David V, 1999. "Commentary on "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 43-45, December.
    13. Baker, Ronald J. & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 2011. "An exploration of the robustness of alternative laboratory methodologies: Matching funds and the provision of public goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 763-774.
    14. John A. List & Azeem M. Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2019. "Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 773-793, December.
    15. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    16. Reshmaan N. Hussam & David Porter & Vernon L. Smith, 2008. "Thar She Blows: Can Bubbles Be Rekindled with Experienced Subjects?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 924-937, June.
    17. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    18. Eckel, Catherine, 1999. "Commentary on "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 47-48, December.
    19. Dickinson, David L., 2009. "Experiment timing and preferences for fairness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 89-95, January.
    20. Bruno Biais & Denis Hilton & Karine Mazurier & Sébastien Pouget, 2005. "Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 287-312.
    21. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    22. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    24. Reinhard Selten & Michael Mitzkewitz & Gerald R. Uhlich, 1997. "Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 517-556, May.
    25. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2010. "Bubble measures in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 284-298, September.
    26. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    27. Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1994. "Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-36, May.
    28. Williams, Arlington W., 2008. "Price Bubbles in Large Financial Asset Markets," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 29, pages 242-246, Elsevier.
    29. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Aurélien Nioche & Basile Garcia & Germain Lefebvre & Thomas Boraud & Nicolas P. Rougier & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2019. "Coordination over a unique medium of exchange under information scarcity," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Voslinsky, Alisa & Azar, Ofer H., 2021. "Incentives in experimental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    3. Slawomir Kalinowski, 2020. "From expected utility theory to prospect theory: tracking down the experimental path after forty years," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(4), pages 39-56.
    4. Andraszewicz, Sandra & Wu, Ke & Sornette, Didier, 2019. "Behavioural effects and market dynamics in field and laboratory experimental asset markets," Economics Discussion Papers 2019-33, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.

    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. Amos Nadler & Peiran Jiao & Cameron J. Johnson & Veronika Alexander & Paul J. Zak, 2019. "The Bull of Wall Street: Experimental Analysis of Testosterone and Asset Trading," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4032-4051, September.
    2. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    3. Walkowitz, Gari, 2021. "Dictator game variants with probabilistic (and cost-saving) payoffs: A systematic test," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Marquardt, Philipp & Noussair, Charles N & Weber, Martin, 2019. "Rational expectations in an experimental asset market with shocks to market trends," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 116-140.
    5. Baghestanian, S. & Lugovskyy, V. & Puzzello, D., 2015. "Traders’ heterogeneity and bubble-crash patterns in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 82-101.
    6. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    7. Roger, Tristan & Roger, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "Number sense, trading decisions and mispricing: An experiment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Schindler, David, 2017. "Overpricing and stake size: On the robustness of results from experimental asset markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 101-104.
    9. Bao, Zhengyang & Kalaycı, Kenan & Leibbrandt, Andreas & Oyarzun, Carlos, 2020. "Do regulations work? A comprehensive analysis of price limits and trading restrictions in experimental asset markets with deterministic and stochastic fundamental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 59-84.
    10. Cheung, Stephen L. & Hedegaard, Morten & Palan, Stefan, 2014. "To see is to believe: Common expectations in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 84-96.
    11. Enrica Carbone & John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer, 2021. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Exchange Economies: Long-Lived Asset vs. Short-Lived Asset," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6946-6962, November.
    12. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Angela Sutan & Marc Willinger, 2016. "The Strategic Environment Effect in Beauty Contest Games," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-05, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis.
    13. Shestakova, Natalia & Powell, Owen & Gladyrev, Dmitry, 2019. "Bubbles, experience and success," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-213.
    14. Bao, Te & Hommes, Cars & Pei, Jiaoying, 2021. "Expectation formation in finance and macroeconomics: A review of new experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    15. Michael Kirchler & Jurgen Huber & Thomas Stockl, 2012. "Thar She Bursts: Reducing Confusion Reduces Bubbles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 865-883, April.
    16. Cary Deck & Maroš Servátka & Steven Tucker, 2020. "Designing Call Auction Institutions to Eliminate Price Bubbles: Is English Dutch the Best?," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 225-236, June.
    17. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas, 2014. "Informational asymmetries in laboratory asset markets with state-dependent fundamentals," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 207, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Eizo Akiyama & Yukihiko Funaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "Diversity in Cognitive Ability Enlarges Mispricing in Experimental Asset Markets," Working Papers halshs-01202088, HAL.
    19. Penalver, Adrian & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Akiyama, Eizo & Funaki, Yukihiko & Ishikawa, Ryuichiro, 2020. "A quantitative easing experiment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Aragón, Nicolás & Roulund, Rasmus Pank, 2020. "Confidence and decision-making in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 688-718.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    asset market experiments; experiment incentives;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wai:econwp:17/21. 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: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.html .

    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.