IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v239y2025ics0167268125003701.html

Searching for the external validity of social preference games: A guide of field environments based on expert perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Navarro-Martinez, Daniel
  • Pirla, Sergio

Abstract

The last couple of decades have witnessed a lively debate on the external validity of social preference games. Yet, scientific progress in this area has been restrained by the difficulty of delineating the field environments that social preference games should generalize to. Here we present three studies investigating the field environments and behaviors to which social preference games are expected to relate, according to specialist researchers. In Study 1, we systematically reviewed all the papers published in the top 5 economics journals that used social preference games, and we analyzed the field settings explicitly linked to the games by the authors. In Study 2, we used large language models to expand our analysis of the literature beyond the top 5. In Study 3, we conducted a survey among members of the Economic Science Association (ESA) mailing list to investigate the field environments they viewed as most closely associated with different social preference games. Overall, our results provide a rich guide to the types of field settings that are expected to relate to social preference games, according to the people who use them. This guide constitutes a useful reference to organize future research on external validity and make it more systematic.

Suggested Citation

  • Navarro-Martinez, Daniel & Pirla, Sergio, 2025. "Searching for the external validity of social preference games: A guide of field environments based on expert perceptions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:239:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125003701
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125003701
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107251?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    4. 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.
    5. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    2. Andrej Gill & Florian Hett & Johannes Tischer, 2022. "Time Inconsistency and Overdraft Use: Evidence from Transaction Data and Behavioral Measurement Experiments," Working Papers 2205, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    4. Andrea Albertazzi, 2022. "Individual cheating in the lab: a new measure and external validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 37-67, July.
    5. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," SAFE Working Paper Series 347, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    6. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," Discussion Papers 18/2022, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    7. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    8. Omar Al-Ubaydli & Faith Fatchen & John List, 2025. "Using Field Experiments to Understand the Impact of Institutions on Economic Growth," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, edition 0, chapter 42, pages 1117-1143, Springer.
    9. Pol Campos-Mercade & Claes Ek & Magnus Soderberg & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Social Preferences and Environmental Externalities," CESifo Working Paper Series 11895, CESifo.
    10. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. 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.
    12. Aflagah, Kodjo & Bernard, Tanguy & Viceisza, Angelino, 2022. "Cheap talk and coordination in the lab and in the field: Collective commercialization in Senegal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    13. repec:ces:ceswps:_8190 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Deversi, Marvin & Kocher, Martin G. & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "Cooperation in a Company: A Large-Scale Experiment," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 233, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. John List, 2022. "Framed Field Experiments: 2021 Summary on Fieldexperiments.com," Framed Field Experiments 00752, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. 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.
    17. Bernal, Oscar & Hudon, Marek & Ledru, François-Xavier, 2025. "Who buys social bank shares? Exploring individual financial and non-pecuniary motives," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    18. Detemple, Julian, 2024. "Thoughts about the dictator and trust game," SAFE Working Paper Series 422, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    19. Schmidt, Robert J. & Schwieren, Christiane & Sproten, Alec N., 2018. "Social Norm Perception in Economic Laboratory Experiments: Inexperienced versus Experienced Participants," Working Papers 0656, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    20. 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.
    21. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:jeborg:v:239:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125003701. 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.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.