IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trn/utwpce/0209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experiments in Economics: Testing Theories vs. the Robustness of Phenomena

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Guala
  • Luigi Mittone

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Guala & Luigi Mittone, 2002. "Experiments in Economics: Testing Theories vs. the Robustness of Phenomena," CEEL Working Papers 0209, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    • Handle: RePEc:trn:utwpce:0209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-ceel.economia.unitn.it/papers/papero02_09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fischhoff, Baruch, 1996. "The Real World: What Good Is It?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 232-248, March.
    2. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    3. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521643368, September.
    4. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, September.
    5. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644112, September.
    6. Charles R. Plott, 1997. "Laboratory Experimental Testbeds: Application to the PCS Auction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 605-638, September.
    7. Kagel, John H. & Levin, Dan, 1986. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 894-920, December.
    8. Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 16-24, February.
    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. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Francesco Guala, 2005. "Economics in the lab: Completeness vs. testability," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 185-196.
    3. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    4. Francisco Alpízar & Till Requate & Albert Schram, 2004. "Collective versus Random Fining: An Experimental Study on Controlling Ambient Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(2), pages 231-252, October.
    5. Julian Reiss, 2001. "Natural economic quantities and their measurement," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-311.
    6. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    8. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    10. Andreas Ortmann & John Fitzgerald & Carl Boeing, 2000. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History: A Re-examination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 81-100, June.
    11. Aumann, Craig A., 2007. "A methodology for developing simulation models of complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 385-396.
    12. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    13. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Bennouri, Moez & Gimpel, Henner & Robert, Jacques, 2011. "Measuring the impact of information aggregation mechanisms: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 302-318, May.
    15. Stephen Pratten, 2007. "Realism, closed systems and abstraction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 473-497.
    16. Andrea Morone & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Simone Nuzzo & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2020. "Does a ‘financial transaction tax’ drive out information mirages? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 15(4), pages 793-820, October.
    17. Midgley, Gerald, 2008. "Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.:: The unification of systems thinking: Is there gold at the end of the rainbow?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 317-321, August.
    18. Irene van Staveren, 2012. "An Evolutionary Efficiency Alternative to the Notion of Pareto Efficiency," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-6, July.
    19. Nicolas Brisset, 2018. "Models as speech acts: the telling case of financial models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 21-41, January.
    20. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.

    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:trn:utwpce:0209. 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: Marco Tecilla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detreit.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.