Experimental Economics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 251–283 | Cite as

Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment

Original Paper

Abstract

Internet is a very attractive technology for the implementation of experiments, both in order to obtain larger and more diverse samples and as a field of economic research in its own right. This paper reports on an experiment performed both online and in the laboratory, designed to strengthen the internal validity of decisions elicited over the Internet. We use the same subject pool, the same monetary stakes and the same decision interface, and control the assignment of subjects between the Internet and a traditional university laboratory. We apply the comparison to the elicitation of social preferences in a Public Good game, a dictator game, an ultimatum bargaining game and a trust game, coupled with an elicitation of risk aversion. This comparison concludes in favor of the reliability of behaviors elicited through the Internet. We moreover find a strong overall parallelism in the preferences elicited in the two settings. The paper also reports some quantitative differences in the point estimates, which always go in the direction of more other-regarding decisions from online subjects. This observation challenges either the predictions of social distance theory or the generally assumed increased social distance in internet interactions.

Keywords

Social experiment Field experiment Internet Methodology Randomized assignment 

JEL Classification

C90 C93 C70 

Supplementary material

10683_2014_9400_MOESM1_ESM.docx (195 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 195 kb)

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1997). Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, 65(5), 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012). Economic games on the Internet: The effect of $1 stakes. PLoS ONE, 7(2), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderhub, V., Müller, R., & Schmidt, C. (2001). Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the Internet. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 310(6973), 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charness, G., Haruvy, E., & Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesney, T., Chuah, S.-H., & Hoffmann, R. (2009). Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 618–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, D. J., & Saral, K. J. (2013). Entrepreneurship and team participation: An experimental study. European Economic Review, 59, 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dohmen, T., et al. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2006). Internet cautions: Experimental games with Internet partners. Experimental Economics, 9(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. Foundations of Human Sociality, 1(9), 55–96.Google Scholar
  12. 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(2), 716–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiedler, M., Haruvy, E., & Li, S. X. (2011). Social distance in a virtual world experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 72(2), 400–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaeser, E. L., et al. (2000). Measuring Trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Germany: University Library of Munich.Google Scholar
  18. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, M., & Morgan, J. (2011). Who’s Naughty? Who’s Nice? Social Preferences in Online Industries. UC Berkeley Working Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.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(3), 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lotito, G., Migheli, M., & Ortona, G. (2013). Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piovesan, M., & Wengstrom, E. (2009). Fast or fair? A study of response times. Economics Letters, 105(2), 193–196.Google Scholar
  26. Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Resnick, P., et al. (2006). The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubinstein, A. (2007). Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: A study of response times. The Economic Journal, 117(523), 1243–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Selten, R. (1967). Die strategiemethode zur erforschung des eingeschrankt rationalen verhaltens im rahmen eines oligopol experiments. In H. Sauermann (Ed.), Beitrage zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168). Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  30. Shavit, T., Sonsino, D., & Benzion, U. (2001). A comparative study of lotteries-evaluation in class and on the Web. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(4), 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political StudiesUniversity of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSciences PoParisFrance
  3. 3.Berkman Center for Internet & SocietyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Université de Lorraine (BETA)NancyFrance
  5. 5.Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations