Experimental Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 268–281 | Cite as

Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations

Article

Abstract

Laboratory experiments are an important methodology in economics, especially in the field of behavioral economics. However, it is still debated to what extent results from laboratory experiments are informative about behavior in field settings. One highly important question about the external validity of experiments is whether the same individuals act in experiments as they would in the field. This paper presents evidence on how individuals behave in donation experiments and how the same individuals behave in a naturally occurring decision situation on charitable giving. While we find evidence that pro-social behavior is more accentuated in the lab, the data show that pro-social behavior in experiments is correlated with behavior in the field.

Keywords

Experiments External validity Methodology Charitable giving 

JEL

C91 C93 D01 D64 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bardsley, N. (2005). Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 239–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, C., & Fehr, E. (2005). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: a guide for social scientists. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, & R. McElreath (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality—experimental and ethnograhic evidence from 15 small-scale societies (pp. 55–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209–19. Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, J., & Seki, E. (2004). Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from Fishermen in Toyama bay (Mimeo). Middlebury College. Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, J., Liati, A., & Vickrey, B. (2005). They come to play: supply effects in an economic experiment (Mimeo). Department of Economics, Middlebury College. Google Scholar
  7. Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism and anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, S., & O’Brien, E. J. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 513–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 65–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karlan, D. (2006). Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1688–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laury, S. K., & Taylor, L. O. (2006). Altruism spillovers: are behaviors in context-free experiments predictive of altruism towards a naturally occuring public goods (Mimeo). Georgia State University. Google Scholar
  13. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007a). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007b). Viewpoint: on the generalizability of lab behavior to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40(2), 347–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. List, J. A. (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
  16. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  17. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: perspective of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Empirical Research in EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision-MakingFederal Reserve Bank of BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations