Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives

Experimental Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 195-214

  Abeler, Johannes ^a   Nosenzo, Daniele ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Experimenter demand; Field experiment; Laboratory experiment; Methodology; Other regarding behavior; Selection bias; Social approval; Social preferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896692285     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-014-9397-9     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, J., Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J., Götte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., et al. (2013). Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: Evidence from one college student and two adult samples. Experimental Economics,16(2), 170–189.
2. Banks, J., & Oldfield, Z. (2007). Understanding pensions: Cognitive function, numerical ability and retirement saving. Fiscal Studies,28(2), 143–170.
3. Bauman, Y., & Rose, E. (2011). Selection or indoctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,79(3), 318–327.
4. Belot, M., Duch, R., & L. Miller. (2010). Who should be called to the lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. University of Oxford, Nuffield College Discussion Papers (2010-001).
5. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies,70(3), 489–520.
6. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review,89(1), 335–339.
7. Brosig, J. (2002). Identifying cooperative behavior: Some experimental results in a prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,47(3), 275–290.
8. Burks, S., Carpenter, J., & Götte, L. (2009). Performance pay and worker cooperation: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,70(3), 458–469.
9. Camerer, C. (2011). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. SSRN Working Paper.
10. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,68(1), 29–35.
11. Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review,99(1), 431–457.
12. Cleave, B. L., Nikiforakis, N., & Slonim, R. (2013). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experimental Economics,16(3), 372–382.
13. Coppock, A., & Green, D. P. (2013). Assessing the correspondence between experimental results obtained in the lab and field: A review of recent social science. Mimeo: Columbia University.
14. Cubitt, R. P., Drouvelis, M., Gächter, S., & Kabalin, R. (2011). Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding? Journal of Public Economics,95(3–4), 253–264.
15. Dohmen, T. J., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association,9(3), 522–550.
16. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics,3(2), 107–120.
17. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science,326(5952), 535–538.
18. Falk, A., Meier, S., & Zehnder, C. (2013). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association,11(4), 839–852.
19. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics,10(2), 171–178.
20. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters,71(3), 397–404.
21. Frank, B. (1998). Good news for experimenters: Subjects do not care about your welfare. Economics Letters,61(2), 171–174.
22. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives,7(2), 159–171.
23. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives,19(4), 25–42.
24. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2003). Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Inquiry,41(3), 448–462.
25. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics,115(3), 811–846.
26. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79–93). Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.
27. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences,10(5), 535–540.
28. Guillén, P., & Veszteg, R. F. (2012). On “lab rats”. The Journal of Socio-Economics,41(5), 714–720.
29. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Elisabet Rutström, E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,70(3), 498–507.
30. Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment a tale of two markets. Psychological Science,15(11), 787–793.
31. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review,86(3), 653–660.
32. Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,14(3), 235–257.
33. Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C., & Walker, J. M. (1979). Volunteer artifacts in experiments in economics: Specification of the problem and some initial data from a small-scale field experiment. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 169–197). Greenwich: JAI Press.
34. Krawczyk, M. (2011). What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment. Experimental Economics,14(4), 482–489.
35. Levati, M. V., Ploner, M., & Traub, S. (2011). Are conditional cooperators willing to forgo efficiency gains? Evidence from a public goods experiment. New Zealand Economic Papers,45(1), 47–57.
36. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives,21(2), 153–174.
37. Liebrand, W. B. G. (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology,14(3), 239–264.
38. List, J. A. (2007). Field experiments: A bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 6(2).
39. Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV. Journal of Public Economics,15(3), 295–310.
40. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., & Schram, A. (1996). Value orientations, expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. Economic Journal,106, 817–845.
41. Park, E.-S. (2000). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: A further experimental study of framing effects on free-riding. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,43, 405–421.
42. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1969). The volunteer subject. In Robert Rosenthal & Ralph L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 61–118). New York: Academic Press.
43. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1975). The volunteer subject. Wiley series of personality processes. New York: Wiley.
44. Rustagi, D., Engel, S., & Kosfeld, M. (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science,330(6006), 961–965.
45. Slonim, R., Wang, C., Garbarino, E., & Merrett, D. (2013). Opting-In: Participation biases in the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,90, 43–70.
46. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,26(1), 5–16.
47. Stöber, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,17(3), 222–232.
48. Stoop, J., Noussair, C. N., & van Soest, D. (2012). From the lab to the field: Cooperation among fishermen. Journal of Political Economy,120(6), 1027–1056.
49. Tishler, C. L., & Bartholomae, S. (2002). The recruitment of normal healthy volunteers: A review of the literature on the use of financial incentives. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,42(4), 365–375.
50. Tomporowski, P. D., Simpson, R. G., & Hager, L. (1993). Method of recruiting subjects and performance on cognitive tests. The American Journal of Psychology,106(4), 499–521.
51. Tsutsui, K., & Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Group status, minorities and trust. Experimental Economics. doi:10.1007/s10683-013-9364-x
52. von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2012). Experts in experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,45(2), 159–190.
53. Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics,13(1), 75–98.