IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v3y2015i01p113-131_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research

Author

Listed:
  • Coppock, Alexander
  • Green, Donald P.

Abstract

A small but growing social science literature examines the correspondence between experimental results obtained in lab and field settings. This article reviews this literature and reanalyzes a set of recent experiments carried out in parallel in both the lab and field. Using a standardized format that calls attention to both the experimental estimates and the statistical uncertainty surrounding them, the study analyzes the overall pattern of lab-field correspondence, which is found to be quite strong (Spearman's Ï = 0.73). Recognizing that this correlation may be distorted by the ad hoc manner in which lab-field comparisons are constructed (as well as the selective manner in which results are reported and published), the article concludes by suggesting directions for future research, stressing in particular the need for more systematic investigation of treatment effect heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Coppock, Alexander & Green, Donald P., 2015. "Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 113-131, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:3:y:2015:i:01:p:113-131_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847014000107/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arthur Bragança & Avery Simon Cohn, 2019. "Predicting Intensification on the Brazilian Agricultural Frontier: Combining Evidence from Lab-In-The-Field Experiments and Household Surveys," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Clifford, Scott & Rainey, Carlisle, 2023. "Estimators for Topic-Sampling Designs," SocArXiv 7ady6, Center for Open Science.
    3. Felix Bader & Bastian Baumeister & Roger Berger & Marc Keuschnigg, 2021. "On the Transportability of Laboratory Results," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1452-1481, August.
    4. Ozer, Adam & Sullivan, Brian & Van, Douglas, 2022. "Viewed from different Engels? Differences in reactions to “socialism” as a policy label," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 111447, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:cup:pscirm:v:3:y:2015:i:01:p:113-131_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    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.