IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/anture/v116y2026ics0160738325001860.html

Field experiments: Overcoming the limitations of survey experiments for actionable behavioural insights

Author

Listed:
  • Dolnicar, Sara
  • Viglia, Giampaolo
  • Kurtaliqi, Fidan

Abstract

Historically, one-off cross-sectional survey studies have dominated empirical research in tourism and hospitality. The inability to draw causal conclusions from such data has led to an increased uptake of survey experiments, which are easy and affordable to conduct and can identify causal relationships between constructs under controlled conditions. Survey experiments, however, have a severe limitation: they do not provide insights into real behaviour, restricting researchers' ability to generate actionable insights and reliable practical recommendations. This article offers a systematic comparison of three approaches (one-off cross-sectional survey studies, survey experiments, and field experiments) and provides step-by-step guidance on the design and implementation of field experiments and quasi-experimental field studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dolnicar, Sara & Viglia, Giampaolo & Kurtaliqi, Fidan, 2026. "Field experiments: Overcoming the limitations of survey experiments for actionable behavioural insights," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:anture:v:116:y:2026:i:c:s0160738325001860
    DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2025.104080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160738325001860
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.annals.2025.104080?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    2. Zhu, Oscar Yuheng & Li, Hongwei & Grün, Bettina & Dolnicar, Sara, 2024. "The power of respect for authority and empathy – Leveraging non-cognitive theoretical constructs to trigger environmentally sustainable tourist behaviour," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Simon J Blanchard & Jacob Goldenberg & Koen Pauwels & David A Schweidel, 2022. "Promoting Data Richness in Consumer Research: How to Develop and Evaluate Articles with Multiple Data Sources [The Critical Role of Methodological Pluralism for Policy-Relevant Empirical Marketing Research]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(2), pages 359-372.
    5. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2013. "Can Defaults Save the Climate? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Carbon Offsetting Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 613-626, April.
    7. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
    8. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    9. Dolnicar, Sara & Zinn, Anna Kristina & Demeter, Csilla, 2024. "A typology of quantitative approaches to discovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Viglia, Giampaolo & Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "A review of experiments in tourism and hospitality," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Liu, Yan & Cao, Xinyue & Font, Xavier, 2024. "Nudge pro-environmental contagion: Residents to tourists," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Rosenbaum, Paul R., 2007. "Interference Between Units in Randomized Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 191-200, March.
    13. Shadish, William R. & Clark, M. H. & Steiner, Peter M., 2008. "Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1334-1344.
    14. Choi, Sungwoo & Wan, Lisa C. & Mattila, Anna S., 2024. "Unintended indulgence in robotic service encounters," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. Alem, Yonas & Eggert, Håkan & Kocher, Martin G. & Ruhinduka, Remidius D., 2018. "Why (field) experiments on unethical behavior are important: Comparing stated and revealed behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 71-85.
    16. David Boto-García & Alvaro Muñiz-Fernández & Levi Pérez, 2024. "Windfall money and outbound tourism: A natural experiment from lottery winnings," Tourism Economics, , vol. 30(5), pages 1257-1280, August.
    17. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Working Papers 834, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    19. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-47, April.
    20. Barabas, Jason & Jerit, Jennifer, 2010. "Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 226-242, May.
    21. 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.
    22. 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, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    23. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    24. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Imbens, Guido W. & Lemieux, Thomas, 2008. "Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 615-635, February.
    26. Juvan, Emil & Dolnicar, Sara, 2014. "The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-95.
    27. Li, Fangxuan (Sam) & Su, Qianqian, 2024. "Influence of awe on tourism activity preferences," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. S. Dolnicar & G. Viglia & F. Kurtaliqi, 2026. "Field experiments: Overcoming the limitations of survey experiments for actionable behavioural insights," Post-Print hal-05391551, HAL.
    2. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Jonathan H.W. Tan & Zhao Zichen & Daniel John Zizzo, 2023. "Scientific Inference from Field and Laboratory Economic Experiments: Empirical Evidence," Discussion Papers Series 663, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    5. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    6. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    7. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    8. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L’Haridon & Isabelle Vialle, 2014. "Marché du travail, évaluation et économie expérimentale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 189-226.
    9. Xiaofeng Xu & Xin Nie & Han Wang, 2025. "Beyond money: motivating farmers’ responsibility awareness for ecological protection based on the bystander effect in Southwest China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2015. "What do we learn from public good games about voluntary climate action? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Working Papers 0595, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "How much can we learn about voluntary climate action from behavior in public goods games?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L’Haridon & Isabelle Vialle, 2014. "Marché du travail, évaluation et économie expérimentale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 189-226.
    13. KAMKOUM, Arnaud Cedric, 2023. "The Federal Reserve’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and its Effects: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of the Impact of its Quantitative Easing Programs," Thesis Commons d7pvg, Center for Open Science.
    14. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    15. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    16. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Timothy F. Harris & Aaron Yelowitz, 2018. "Life Insurance Holdings And Well‐Being Of Surviving Spouses," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(3), pages 526-538, July.
    18. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    20. Mauricio Villamizar‐Villegas & Freddy A. Pinzon‐Puerto & Maria Alejandra Ruiz‐Sanchez, 2022. "A comprehensive history of regression discontinuity designs: An empirical survey of the last 60 years," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1130-1178, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:anture:v:116:y:2026:i:c:s0160738325001860. 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: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/annals-of-tourism-research/ .

    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.