Advertisement

Experimental Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 371–390 | Cite as

Do short-term laboratory experiments provide valid descriptions of long-term economic interactions? A study of Cournot markets

  • Hans-Theo Normann
  • Till Requate
  • Israel WaichmanEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

One key problem regarding the external validity of laboratory experiments is their duration: while economic interactions out in the field are often lengthy processes, typical lab experiments only last for an hour or two. To address this problem for the case of both symmetric and asymmetric Cournot duopoly, we conduct internet treatments lasting more than a month. Subjects make the same number of decisions as in the short-term counterparts, but they decide once a day. We compare these treatments to corresponding standard laboratory treatments and also to short-term internet treatments lasting one hour. We do not observe differences in behavior between the short- and long-term in the symmetric treatments, and only a small difference in the asymmetric treatments. We overall conclude that behavior is not considerably different between the short- and long-term.

Keywords

Internet experiment Cournot oligopoly Long-term interactions Methodology Internet vs. laboratory experiment 

JEL Classification

L13 C93 C72 D43 D21 

Supplementary material

10683_2013_9373_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
(PDF 1.2 MB)

References

  1. Anderhub, V., Müller, R., & Schmidt, C. (2001). Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the Internet. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 227–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Blanchard, E. (2006). Testing subgame perfection apart from fairness in ultimatum games. Experimental Economics, 9, 307–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baik, K. H., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., & Shogren, J. (1999). Endogenous timing in a gaming tournament. Theory and Decision, 47(1), 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosch-Doménech, A., & Vriend, N. J. (2003). Imitation of successful behavior in Cournot markets. The Economic Journal, 113, 495–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camerer, C. F. (2011). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: a critical reply to Levitt and List. Available at SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1977749.
  7. Cassar, A. (2007). Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 58, 209–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, G., Haruvy, E., & Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: an Internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 88–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chesney, T., Chuah, S.-H., & Hoffmann, R. (2009). Virtual world experimentation: an exploratory study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 618–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egas, M., & Riedl, A. (2008). The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 275, 871–878. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feltovich, N. (2003). Nonparametric tests of differences in medians: comparison of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and robust rank-order tests. Experimental Economics, 6, 273–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiedler, M., & Haruvy, E. (2009). The lab versus the virtual lab and virtual field—an experimental investigation of trust games with communication. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 716–724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fligner, M. A., & Policello, G. E. (1981). Robust rank procedures for the Behrens-Fisher problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 162–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, D., & Oprea, R. (2012). A continuous dilemma. The American Economic Review, 102, 337–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Füllbrunn, S., Richwien, K., & Sadrieh, A. (2011). Trust and trustworthiness in anonymous virtual worlds. Journal of Media Economics, 24, 48–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2006). Putting behavioral economics to work: testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica, 74, 1365–1384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton, W. D. (1970). Selfish and spiteful behavior in an evolutionary model. Nature, 228, 1218–1225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hergueux, J., & Jacquemet, N. (2012). Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment. CES working papers 2012.70. Google Scholar
  21. Hong, J. T., & Plott, C. R. (1982). Rate filing policies for inland water transportation: an experimental approach. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., & Oechssler, J. (1999). Learning in Cournot oligopoly—an experiment. The Economic Journal, 109, 80–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., & Oechssler, J. (2004). Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53, 435–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isaac, R. M., Walker, J. M., & Williams, A. W. (1994). Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods: experimental evidence utilizing large groups. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2007). Irrational economic decision making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 951–956. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lei, V., Noussair, C. N., & Plott, C. R. (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Econometrica, 69, 831–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitt, S., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. The American Economic Review, 90, 426–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24, S49–S56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999). Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future feelings. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well being: the foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 85–105). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar
  32. Mason, C. F., & Phillips, O. R. (1997). Information and cost asymmetry in experimental duopoly markets. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 290–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, C. F., Phillips, O. R., & Nowell, C. (1992). Duopoly behavior in asymmetric markets: an experimental evaluation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 662–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Normann, H.-T., & Wallace, B. (2012). The impact of the termination rule in a prisoners’ dilemma experiment. International Journal of Game Theory, 41, 707–718. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oechssler, J., Roider, A., & Schmitz, P. (2008). Cooling-off in negotiations—does it work? Technical report 6807. Google Scholar
  36. Potters, J., & Suetens, S. (2009). Cooperation in experimental games of strategic complements and substitutes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1125–1147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Requate, T., & Waichman, I. (2011). “A profit table or a profit calculator?” A note on the design of Cournot oligopoly experiments. Experimental Economics, 14, 36–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rilling, J. K., Gutman, D. A., Zeh, T. R., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G. S., & Kilts, C. D. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35, 395–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rilling, J. K., Sanfey, A. G., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Opposing BOLD responses to reciprocated and unreciprocated altruism in putative reward pathways. NeuroReport, 15, 2539–2543. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmelz, K., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2012). Hierarchical distance and control aversion: evidence from the Internet and the laboratory. Working paper. Google Scholar
  42. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Huber, O. (2003). Information search in the laboratory and on the web: with or without an experimenter. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2, 227–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS ONE, 6, 16836. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Theo Normann
    • 1
  • Till Requate
    • 2
  • Israel Waichman
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Duesseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE)University of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations