Mind & Society

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 119–138

Sociality and external validity in experimental economics

Article

Abstract

It is sometimes argued that experimental economists do not have to worry about external validity so long as the design sticks closely to a theoretical model. This position mistakes the model for the theory. As a result, applied economics designs often study phenomena distinct from their stated objects of inquiry. Because the implemented models are abstract, they may provide improbable analogues to their stated subject matter. This problem is exacerbated by the relational character of the social world, which also sets epistemic limits for the social science laboratory more generally.

Keywords

Experiments Social construction External validity 

References

  1. Allingham MG, Sandmo A (1972) Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. J Public Econ 1:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardsley N (2005) Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. J Econ Methodol 12:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardsley N (2008) Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? Exp Econ 11:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardsley N, Cubitt R, Loomes G, Moffatt P, Starmer C, Sugden R (2010) Experimental economics: rethinking the rules. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bicchieri C (2004) Cooperation and communication: group identity or social norms? In: Gold N (ed) Teamwork: multidisciplinary perspectives. Palgrave, MacMillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  6. Croson RTA (2008) Public goods experiments. In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE (eds) The new palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 2. Palgrave, Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  7. Cubitt RP (2005) Experiments and the domain of economic theory. J Econ Methodol 12:197–210Google Scholar
  8. Deaton A (2009) Instruments of development: randomization in the tropics and the search for the elusive keys to development. In: Proceedings of the British Academy 2008 Lectures, 162, pp 123–160Google Scholar
  9. Dolbear FT, Lave LB, Bowman G, Lieberman A, Prescott E, Reuter F, Sherman R (1968) Collusion in oligopoly: an experiment on the effect of numbers and information. Quart J Econ 82:240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feld LP, Frey BS (2002) Trust breeds trust, how taxpayers are treated. Econ Governance 3:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman JW (1963) Individual behavior in oligopolistic markets. Yale Econ Essays 3:359–417Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood JG (1982) On the Relation between laboratory experiments and social behaviour: causal explanation and generalisation. J Theory Soc Behav 12:225–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guala F (2002) On the scope of experiments in economics: comments on siakantaris. Cambridge J Econ 26:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guala F (2005) The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Güth W, Mackscheidt K (1985). Die Erforschung der Steuermoral. Universität zu Köln, working paperGoogle Scholar
  16. Hargreaves Heap S, Hollis M, Lyons B, Sugden R, Weale A (1992) The theory of choice, a critical guide. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Harré R, Secord P (1972) The explanation of social behaviour. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt CA (1985) An experimental test of the consistent conjectures hypothesis. Am Econ Rev 75:314–325Google Scholar
  19. Holt CA (1995) Industrial organiszation: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel J, Roth A (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Irlenbusch B, Sutter M (2006) An experimental analysis of voting in the stability and growth pact in the european monetary union. Public Choice 129:417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirchler E (2007) The economic psychology of taxation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of the experimental research. In: Kagel J, Roth A (eds) The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mäki U (2005) Models are experiments, experiments are models. J Econ Methodol 12:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan J, Orzen H, Sefton M (2006) An experimental study of price dispersion. Games Econ Behav 54:134–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orne MT (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am Psychol 17:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orne MT (1973) Communication by the total experimental situation. In: Pliner P, Krames L, Alloway T (eds) Affect communication, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, pp 157–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Schelling TC (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Schram A (2005) Artificiality: the tension between internal and external validity in economics experiments. J Econ Methodol 12:225–238Google Scholar
  30. Sherman L (1992) Policing domestic violence. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Sherman L, Berk R (1984) The minneapolis domestic violence experiment. The police foundationGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith V (1982) Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. Am Econ Rev 72:923–955Google Scholar
  33. Starmer C (1999) Experiments in economics. Should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats? J Econ Methodol 6:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sugden R (2000) Credible worlds: the status of theoretical models in economics. J Econ Methodol 7:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tilley N (2001) Evaluation and evidence-led crime reduction policy and practice. Chap. 3 of Matthews R, Pitts J (eds) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Tirole J (1988) The theory of industrial organization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Torgler B (2002) Speaking to theorists and searching for facts: tax morale and tax compliance in experiments. J Econ Surveys 16:657–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treasure T, MacRae D (1998) Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? Br Med J 317:362–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watson AJ, Lovelock JE (1983) Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of daisyworld. Tellus 35B:284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webley P, Morris I, Amstutz F (1985) Tax evasion during a small business simulation. In: Brandstätter H, Kirchler E (eds) Economic Psychology. Trauner, LinzGoogle Scholar
  41. Zizzo D (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp Econ 13:75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations