IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v100y2022ics2214804322000842.html

Lab vs online experiments: No differences

Author

Listed:
  • Prissé, Benjamin
  • Jorrat, Diego

Abstract

We ran an experiment to study whether not controlling, or the lack of control, of the experimental environment has an effect on experimental results. Subjects were recruited following standard procedures and randomly assigned to complete the experiment online or in the laboratory. The experimental design is otherwise identical between conditions. The results suggest that there are no differences between conditions, except for a larger percentage of online subjects who donate nothing in the Dictator Game.

Suggested Citation

  • Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:100:y:2022:i:c:s2214804322000842
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804322000842
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101910?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 look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    2. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    3. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Capraro, Valerio & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2018. "Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 19-23.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Iris Bohnet, 1999. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 335-339, March.
    5. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    6. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    7. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00984211 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    11. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September.
    12. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    13. Andreoni, James & Kuhn, Michael A. & Sprenger, Charles, 2015. "Measuring time preferences: A comparison of experimental methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 451-464.
    14. Jorrat, Diego, 2021. "Recruiting experimental subjects using WhatsApp," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    16. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Jaromír Kovářík & María C López, 2021. "Hyper-altruistic behavior vanishes with high stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-12, August.
    17. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    18. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    19. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    20. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    21. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    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. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín & Diego Jorrat, 2025. "£1(£5) or Nothing in Dictator Games: Unexpected Differences," Working Papers 376, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    3. Prabhakar, Archana & Grison, Elise & Morgagni., Simone, 2024. "Smartphone mobility assistants. A lever to guide route choice preferences in mass transit?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Ekström, Mathias & Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Mota, Pablo Soto & Sjåstad, Hallgeir, 2025. "Making a promise increases the moral cost of lying: Evidence from Norway and the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    5. Burgstaller, Lilith & Pfeil, Katharina, 2024. "Why whistleblowing does not deter collaborative tax evasion," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 24/3, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    6. Katharina Pfeil & Matthias Kasper & Sarah Necker & Lars P. Feld, 2024. "Tax System Design, Tax Reform, and Labor Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11350, CESifo.
    7. Catherine Eckel & Rick K. Wilson & Sora Youn, 2024. "Eager beavers v. lazy slugs: selection effects in experiments with social preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 569-577, December.
    8. Zhang, Yinjunjie & Hoffmann, Manuel & Sara, Raisa & Eckel, Catherine, 2024. "Fairness preferences revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 278-306.
    9. Arifovic, Jasmina & de Jong, Johan & Kopányi-Peuker, Anita, 2024. "Bank choice, bank runs, and coordination in the presence of two banks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 392-410.
    10. Tatarnikova, Olga & Duchêne, Sébastien & Sentis, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Portfolio instability and socially responsible investment: Experiments with financial professionals and students," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. Burgstaller, Lilith & Pfeil, Katharina, 2024. "You don’t need an invoice, do you? An online experiment on collaborative tax evasion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Alfonso, Antonio & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Lomas, Pablo & Prissé, Benjamin & Vasco, Mónica & Vázquez-De Francisco, María J., 2023. "The adventure of running experiments with teenagers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Yohei Mitani & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2025. "Pay a lot to a few instead of a bit to all! Evidence from online donation experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 1273, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    14. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    15. Pfeil, Katharina & Kasper, Matthias & Necker, Sarah & Feld, Lars P., 2025. "Asymmetric labor supply responses to tax rate reform: Experimental evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Sophie Massin & Phu Nguyen-Van & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger & Bruno Ventelou, 2025. "Hysteresis in Addictive Consumption Depends on Time Preferences," Working Papers hal-05266721, HAL.
    17. Marius Protte, 2025. "Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005)," Papers 2507.15568, arXiv.org.
    18. Guo, Yiting & Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2023. "On the generalizability of using mobile devices to conduct economic experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    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. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2021. "Lack of Control: An experiment," MPRA Paper 109918, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín & Diego Jorrat, 2025. "£1(£5) or Nothing in Dictator Games: Unexpected Differences," Working Papers 376, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    3. Hiroki Ozono & Daisuke Nakama, 2022. "Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Guo, Yiting & Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2023. "On the generalizability of using mobile devices to conduct economic experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Antonio A. Arechar & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & David G. Rand, 2017. "Turking overtime: how participant characteristics and behavior vary over time and day on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, July.
    6. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Fest, Sebastian & Kvaløy, Ola & Dijk, Oege, 2022. "Fair advice," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    7. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    8. Hyndman, Kyle & Walker, Matthew J., 2022. "Fairness and risk in ultimatum bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 90-105.
    9. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    10. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Capraro, Valerio & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2018. "Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 19-23.
    11. Armenak Antinyan, 2014. "Loss and Other-Regarding Preferences: Evidence From Dictator Game," Working Papers 03, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    14. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    15. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    16. Cherry, Todd L. & James, Alexander G. & Murphy, James, 2021. "The impact of public health messaging and personal experience on the acceptance of mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 415-430.
    17. Valerio Capraro & Andrea Vanzo & Antonio Cabrales, 2022. "Playing with words: Do people exploit loaded language to affect others’ decisions for their own benefit?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 50-69, January.
    18. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    19. Florian Teschner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "Crowd Labor Markets as Platform for Group Decision and Negotiation Research: A Comparison to Laboratory Experiments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 197-214, April.
    20. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D15 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Intertemporal Household Choice; Life Cycle Models and Saving

    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:soceco:v:100:y:2022:i:c:s2214804322000842. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.