Advertisement

Experimental Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 482–489 | Cite as

What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment

  • Michal Krawczyk
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper reports a field experiment involving manipulation of invitations to register in an experimental economics subject database. Two types of invitations were sent out: one emphasizing pecuniary and the other non-pecuniary benefits of participation. The former resulted in higher response rate and the strength of this treatment effect was comparable in different groups defined by gender and academic major. In a follow-up test conducted about a year later it was found that individuals recruited by invitations emphasizing monetary benefits were less willing to make an effort to participate in a non-paid survey. The very same survey also showed that they were marginally less altruistic in general.

Keywords

Experimental economics Recruitment procedures Incentives Selection into experiments 

JEL Classification

C9 

References

  1. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics, 3(2), 107–120. Google Scholar
  4. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank, B., & Schulze, G. (2000). Does economics make citizens corrupt? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(1), 101–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, p. 10. Google Scholar
  7. Harrison, G., Lau, M., & Rutström, E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(3), 498–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Innocenti, A., & Pazienza, M. (2006). Altruism and gender in the trust game. Labsi Working Paper, 5. Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, J., Procidano, M., & Cohen, C. (1989). Subject pool sign-up procedures: A threat to external validity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 17(1), 29–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. List, J. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacDonald, A. (1972). Characteristics of volunteer subjects under three recruiting methods: Pay, extra credit, and love of science. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 222–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Read, D. (2005). Monetary incentives, what are they good for? Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 265–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rushton, J., Chrisjohn, R., & Fekken, G. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Senn, C., & Desmarais, S. (2001). 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. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(2), 111–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sharp, E., Pelletier, L., & Lévesque, C. (2006). The double-edged sword of rewards for participation in psychology experiments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38(3), 269–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations