Experimental Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 89–105 | Cite as

The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets

  • Jürgen Huber
  • Michael KirchlerEmail author


In 1988 Smith, Suchanek, and Williams (henceforth SSW) introduced a very influential model to test the efficiency of experimental asset markets. They and many subsequent studies observe that bubbles are robust to many treatment changes. Instead, bubbles are avoided only when subjects are experienced in the same setting, when the dividend-process is experienced by subjects beforehand, or when the fundamental value-process (FV) is presented in a well understandable context to reduce subjects’ confusion. We extend this line of research and show that even marginal changes in the experimental instructions/procedure can eliminate bubbles in the SSW-model. In particular, we show that mispricing is significantly reduced and overvaluation is eliminated completely (i) when the fundamental value process is displayed in a graph instead of a table or (ii) when subjects are asked about the current fundamental value at the beginning of each period. From a questionnaire conducted at the end of the experiment we infer that these treatment changes help to improve subjects’ understanding of the FV-process. We conclude that all bubble reducing factors have one common feature: they allow subjects to understand the non-intuitive declining FV-process of the SSW-model better and thus reduce subjects’ confusion about the FV-process.


Experimental economics Asset market Bubble Market efficiency 

JEL Classification

C92 D84 G10 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackert, L. F., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). Margin, short sell, and lotteries in experimental asset markets. Southern Economic Journal, 73(2), 419–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caginalp, G., Porter, D., & Smith, V. (2001). Financial bubbles: Excess cash, momentum and incomplete information. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2(2), 80–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dufwenberg, M., Lindqvist, T., & Moore, E. (2005). Bubbles and experience: An experiment. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1731–1737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In GWDG Bericht: Vol. 63. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (pp. 79–93). Goettingen: Gesellschaft fuer Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung. Google Scholar
  6. Haruvy, E., & Noussair, C. N. (2006). The effect of short selling on bubbles and crashes in experimental spot asset markets. The Journal of Finance, 61(3), 1119–1157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kirchler, M., Huber, J., & Stöckl, T. (2011). Thar she bursts—Reducing confusion reduces bubbles. American Economic Review (forthcoming). Google Scholar
  8. Lei, V., & Vesely, F. (2009). Market efficiency: Evidence from a no-bubble asset market experiment. Pacific Economic Review, 14(2), 246–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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(4), 831–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Noussair, C., Richter, G., & Tyran, J.-R. (2008). Money illusion and nominal inertia in experimental asset markets (Working Paper). Google Scholar
  11. Oechssler, J. (2010). Searching beyond the lamppost: Let’s focus on economically relevant questions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 65–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, V. L. (2010). Theory and experiment: what are the questions? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 3–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, V., Suchanek, G., & Williams, A. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56(5), 1119–1151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, V., van Boening, M., & Wellford, C. P. (2000). Dividend timing and behavior in laboratory asset markets. Economic Theory, 16, 567–583. Google Scholar
  15. Stöckl, T., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2010). Bubble measures in experimental asset markets. Experimental Economics, 13, 284–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sutter, M., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2011). Bubbles and information: An experiment. Management Science (forthcoming). doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1365.
  17. Van Boening, M., Williams, A. W., & LaMaster, S. (1993). Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets. Economics Letters, 41(2), 179–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Banking and FinanceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Centre for FinanceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations