Opting-in: Participation bias in economic experiments

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 90, Issue , 2013, Pages 43-70

  Slonim, Robert ^a   Wang, Carmen ^b   Garbarino, Ellen ^c   Merrett, Danielle ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d WORLD BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

Laboratory experiments; Participation bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876302495     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Al-Ubaydli O., List J. On the generalizability of experimental results in economics. The Methods of Modern Experiments 2012, Oxford University Press. G. Frechette, A. Schotter (Eds.).
2. Alatas V., Cameron L., Chaudhuri A., Erkal N., Gangadharan L. Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: a comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students. Experimental Economics 2009, 12(1):113-132.
3. Andersen S., Harrison G.W., Lau M.I., Rutström E. Preference heterogeneity in experiments: comparing the field and laboratory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2009, 73(2):209-229.
4. Anderson, J., Burks, S.V., Carpenter, J., Götte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., Potter, R., Rocha, K., Rustichini, A., 2010. Self Selection Does Not Increase Other-regarding Preferences among Adult Laboratory Subjects, but Student Subjects May Be More Self-Regarding than Adults, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5389.
5. Andreoni, J., Sprenger, C., 2010. Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets, NBER Working Paper No. 16347.
6. Baran, N., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., 2010. Can We Infer Social Preferences from the Lab? Evidence from the Trust Game, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7634.
7. Bellemare C., Kröger S. On representative social capital. European Economic Review 2007, 51(1):181-202.
8. Bellemare C., Kröger S., van Soest A. Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica 2008, 76(4):815-839.
9. Bellemare C., Kröger S., van Soest A. Preferences, intentions, and expectations violations: a large-scale experiment with a representative subject pool. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2011, 78(3):349-365.
10. Belot, M., Duch, R., Miller, L., 2010. Who Should be Called to the Lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Nuffield Centre for Experimental Social Sciences, University of Oxford, Discussion Paper Series.
11. Benz Matthias, Meier Stephan Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from Donations. Experimental Economics 2008, 11(3):268-281.
12. Binswanger H.P. Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1980, 62:395-407.
13. Binswanger Hans P. Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal 1981, 91:867-890.
14. Bowles S., Polania-Reyes S. Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements?. Journal of Economic Literature 2012, 50(2):368-425.
15. Brañas-Garza, P., Exadaktylos, F., Martín, A.E., 2011. Experimental Subjects are Not Special. Working Paper.
16. Burks S., Carpenter J., Goette L. Performance pay and worker cooperation: evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2009, 70(3):458-469.
17. Camerer, C., 2011. The Promise and Success of Lab-Field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List. Working Paper.
18. Cameron L., Chaudhuri A., Erkal N., Gangadharan L. Propersities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore. Journal of Public Economics 2009, 93(7/8):843-851.
19. Cardenas J. Social norms and behavior in the local commons as seen through the lens of field experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 1-35.
20. Cardenas, J.C., 2005. Groups, commons and regulations: experiments with villagers and students in Colombia. In: Agarwal, Vercelli (Eds.), Psychology, Rationality and Economic Behaviour: Challenging Standard Assumptions. IEA Conference Volume Series 142, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press, New York.
21. Carpenter J., Connolly C., Myers C. Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics 2008, 11(3):282-298.
22. Carpenter, J., Burks, S., Verhoogen, E., 2004. Comparing Students to Workers: The Effects of Social Framing on Behavior in Distribution Games. IZA Discussion Papers No. 1341.
23. Casari M., Ham J., Kagel J. Selection bias, demographic effects and ability effects in common value auctions experiments. American Economic Review 2007, 97(4):1278-1304.
24. Cleave, B.L., Nikiforakis, N., Slonim, R. Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? Experimental Economics, forthcoming.
25. Cooper D.J., Kagel J., Lo W., Gu Q.L. Gaming against managers in incentive systems: experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. American Economic Review 1999, 89(4):781-804.
26. Dixon P.N. Subject recruitment incentives, personality factors, and attitudes towards experimentation in a simultaneous intentional-incidental learning task. Journal of General Psychology 1978, 99:99-105.
27. Eckel C., Grossman P. Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior 1996, 16:181-191.
28. Eckel C., Grossman P. Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: the effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics 2000, 3:107-120.
29. Eckel C., Grossman P. Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2008, 68(1):1-17.
30. Falk A., Heckman J. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 2009, 326:535-538.
31. Falk, A., Meier, S., Zehnder, C. Did we overestimate the role of social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, forthcoming.
32. Fehr E., List J. The hidden costs and rewards of incentives - trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association 2004, 2:741-771.
33. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2005, 19(4):25-42.
34. Garbarino E., Slonim R. The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2009, 69(3):226-240.
35. Garbarino E., Slonim R., Sydnor J. Digit ratios (2D:4D) as predictors of risky decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2011, 42(1):1-26.
36. Glaeser E., Laibson D., Scheinkman J.A., Soutter C.L. Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2000, 115(3):811-846.
37. Greiner B., 2004. The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics. University of Cologne. Working Paper Series in Economics 10.
38. Groves R.M. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:646-675.
39. Güth W., Schmidt C., Sutter M. Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game. The Economic Journal 2007, 117:449-469.
40. Hannah L., Kagel J., Moser D. Partial gift exchange in an experimental labor market: impact of subject population differences, productivity differences and effort requests on behavior. Journal of Labor Economics 2002, 20(4):923-951.
41. Harbaugh W.T., Krause K., Liday S.G., Vesterlund L. Trust in children. Trust, Reciprocity and Gains from Association 2003, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. E. Ostrom, J. Walker (Eds.).
42. Harrison G.W., List J.A. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42(4):1009-1055.
43. Harrison G.W., Lau M., Rutström E. Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2009, 70:498-507.
44. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47:153-161.
45. Heckman J., Ichimura H., Smith J., Todd P. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 1998, 66:1017-1098.
46. Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Gintis H., McElreath R., Fehr E. In search of homo economicus: experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review 2001, 91(2):73-79.
47. Henrich J., Heine S., Norenzayan A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 2010, 446:29.
48. Herrmann B., Thöni C., Gächter S. Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 2008, 319(5868):1362-1367.
49. Hoffman, M.H., Morgan, J., 2011. Whos Naughty? Whos Nice? Social Preferences in Online Industries. Working Paper.
50. Holt C. Markets, Games, and Strategic Behavior: Recipes for Interactive Learning 2006, Pearson Addison-Wesley.
51. Horton J., Rand D., Zeckhauser R. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 2011, 14(3):399-425.
52. Jackson J.M., Procidano M.E., Cohen C.J. Subject pool sign-up procedures: a threat to external validity. Social Behavior and Personality 1989, 17:29-43.
53. Jung J. Current practices and problems in the use of college students for psychological research. The Canadian Psychologist 1969, 10:280-290.
54. Kagel J., Battalio R., Walker J. Volunteer artifacts in experiments in economics: specification of the problem and some initial data from a small scale field experiment. Research in Experimental Economics 1979, 1.
55. Kessler, J., Vesterlund, L. The external validity of laboratory experiments: the misleading emphasis on quantitative effects. In: Frechette, G., Schotter, A. (Eds.), Methods of Modern Experimental Economics, Oxford University Press (Chapter 15), forthcoming.
56. Krawczyk M. What brings subjects to the lab?. Experimental Economics 2011, 14(4):482-489.
57. Levitt S.D., List J.A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2007, 21(2):153-174.
58. Levitt S.D., List J.A. Viewpoint: on the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics 2007, 40(2):347-370.
59. List J. Young, selfish, and male: field evidence on social preferences. Economic Journal 2004, 114:121-149.
60. List J. The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy 2006, 114(1):1-37.
61. Miller L.E., Smith K.L. Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension 1983, 21(5):45-50.
62. Orne M. On the social psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist 1962, 17(10):776-783.
63. Remoundou, K., Drichoutis, A., Koundouri, P., 2010. Warm Glow in Charitable Auctions: Are the WEIRDos Driving the Results? MPRA Paper No. 25553.
64. Roe B.E., Haab T.C., Beversdorf D.Q., Gu H.H., Tilley M.R. Risk-attitude selection bias in subject pools for experiments involving neuroimaging and blood samples. Journal of Economic Psychology 2009, 30(2):181-189.
65. Rosen E. Differences between volunteers and non-volunteers for psychological studies. Journal of Applied Psychology 1951, 35:185-193.
66. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. Artifacts in Behavioral Research 1969, Oxford University Press.
67. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. The Volunteer Subject 1973, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
68. Roth A.E., Prasnikar V., Okuno-Fujiwara M., Zamir S. Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubiljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. American Economic Review 1991, 81:1068-1095.
69. Rush M.C., Phillips J.S., Panek P.E. Subject recruitment bias: the paid volunteer subject. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1978, 47:443-449.
70. Saunders D.M., Fisher W.A., Hewitt E.C., Clayton J.P. A method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, 49:1703-1712.
71. Senn C.Y., Desmarais S. Are our recruitment practices for sex studies working across gender? The effect of topic and gender of recruiter on participation rates of university men and women. Journal of Sex Research 2001, 38:111-117.
72. Silverman I., Margulis S. Experiment title as a source of sampling bias in commonly used 'subject pool' procedures. The Canadian Psychologist 1973, 14:197-201.
73. Smith V.L. Experimental economics: induced value theory. The American Economic Review 1976, 66(2):274-279.
74. Slonim R., Garbarino E. Increases in trust and altruism from partner selection: experimental evidence. Experimental Economics 2006, 11(2):134-153.
75. Strotz R.H. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies 1955, 23(3):165-180.
76. Wagner M.E., Schubert D.S.P. Increasing volunteer representativeness by recruiting for credit or pay. The Journal of General Psychology 1976, 94:85-91.