Stoop, Jan (2012): From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners.
Download (153kB) | Preview
Results are reported of the first natural field experiment on the dictator game, where subjects are unaware that they participate in an experiment. In contrast to predictions of the standard economic model, dictators show a large degree of pro-social behavior. This paper builds a bridge from the laboratory to the field to explore how predictive findings from the laboratory are for the field. External validity is remarkably high. In all experiments, subjects display an equally high amount of pro-social behavior, whether they are students or not, participate in a laboratory or not, or are aware that they participate in an experiment or not.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners|
|Keywords:||altruism, natural field experiment, external validity|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D64 - Altruism; Philanthropy
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C70 - General
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
|Depositing User:||Jan Stoop|
|Date Deposited:||02. Mar 2012 20:12|
|Last Modified:||19. Feb 2013 00:11|
Anderson, J., Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Gotte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., Potter, R., Rocha, K., and 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, 5389.
Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.
Andreoni, J. and Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., and Rasul, I. (2005). Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 917–962.
Bellemare, C. and Kroger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183–202.
Benz, M. and Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in real life? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281.
Bolton, G. E. and Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.
Buchan, N., Johnson, E., and Croson, R. (2006). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture, and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60, 373–398.
Camerer, C. (2011). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to levitt and list. working paper.
Camerer, C. and Thaler, R. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209–219.
CBS (2010). Bevolking op 1 januari. Technical report, Centraal Bureau voor de Statisktiek.
Charness, G., Haruvy, E., and Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: An internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 88–103.
Charness, G. and Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.
Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., and Shogren, J. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.
Cleave, B., Nikiforakis, N., and Slonim, R. (2011). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? IZA Discussion Paper, 5488.
Eckel, C. and Grossman, P. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171–188.
Fahr, R. and Irlenbusch, B. (2000). Fairness as a constraint on trust in reciprocity: Earned property rights in a reciprocal exchange experiment. Economics Letters, 66, 275–282.
Falk, A. and Heckman, J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538.
Falk, A., Meier, S., and Zehnder, C. (2010). Did we overestimate he role of social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Working Paper.
Falk, A. and Zehnder, C. (2007). Discrimination and in-group favoritism in a citywide trust experiment. IZA discussion paper, 2765.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., and Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1.
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.
Fershtman, C. and Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 351–377.
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N., and Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.
Harrison, G. and List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, XLII, 1009–1055.
Heinz, M., Juranek, S., and Rau, H. (2011). Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games. DICE Discussion Paper, 24.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., and Gintis, H.(2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford University Press, New York.
Herrmann, B., Thoni, C., and Gachter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Sachat, K., and Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., and Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and otherregarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.
Johannesson, M. and Persson, B. (2000). Non-reciprocal altruism in dictator games. Economics Letters, 69, 137–142.
Kahneman, D., J., K., and Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–41.
Kessler, J. and Vesterlund, L. (2011). External Validity of Laboratory Experiments. Oxford University Press.
Laury, S., Walker, J., and Williams, A. (1995). Anonymity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27(3), 365–380.
Leider, S., Mobius, M., Rosenblat, T., and Do, Q. (2009). Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1815–1851.
Levine, D. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1(3), 593–622.
Levitt, S. and List, J. (2007a). Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40, 347–370.
Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. (2007b). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 21(2), 153–174.
Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. (2008). Homo economicus evolves. Science, 319(5865), 909–910.
List, J. (2006a). The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37.
List, J. (2006b). Field experiments: A bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6(2), 1–45.
List, J. (2009). Social preferences: Some thoughts from the field. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 563–579.
Oxoby, R. and Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 703–713.
Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.
Soetevent, A. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context - A field experiment in 30 churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89(11-12), 2301–2323.
Solnick, S. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 189–200.