Advertisement

Creating Social Ontology: On the Performative Nature of Economic Experiments

  • Carsten Herrmann-PillathEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The paper analyses the methodology of economic lab experiments on human behaviour in the light of Barad’s ‘agential realism’. Experimenters conventionally think that experiments identify properties that human individuals have, independent from the experimental setting (the ‘preferences’ or ‘values’, etc.), so that lab results generalize for the entire reference population (cultural groups, species, etc.) in the field. To the contrary, I argue that economic experiments are performative, which means that experimenters, experimental subjects and experimental designs are entangled in one performative setting, following earlier analyses by Guala, Callon and others. I discuss the performativity of experiments in considering the mandatory use of monetary incentives as an instance of ‘priming’ and ‘framing’ with money, as established in psychological experimental research. I take this analysis one substantial step further in demonstrating that this view corresponds to Barad’s reconstruction of Niels Bohr’s philosophical evaluation of experiments in quantum physics, which eschew the notion of an independent ‘object’ having stable properties in favour of an ontology of ‘phenomena’. I suggest that this view is congenial to the conventional economic theory of ‘revealed preferences’. Then, Bohr’s principle of complementarity can be shown to apply also for economic phenomena, in particular the duality of individual and social preferences, which I relate to Tuomela’s philosophical analysis of ‘I mode’ and ‘We mode’ in human action. In this view, it is meaningless to ask whether experiments can finally provide evidence on which kind of preferences human beings have in general (even for one single individual); economic experiments can identify certain performative mechanisms that generate a specific kind of preferences in a particular context.

Keywords

Performativity of economic experiments Money priming Agential realism Niels Bohr Principle of complementarity Social preferences 

JEL code

B41 C90 

References

  1. Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhme, J. (2016). ‘Doing’ laboratory experiments: An ethnomethodological study of the performative practice in behavioral economic research. In I. Boldyrev & E. Svetlova (Eds.), Enacting dismal science. new perspectives on the performativity of economics (pp. 87–108). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bowles, S., & Polanía–Reyes S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, L(2), 368–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. F. (2015). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to levitt and list. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 249–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C., & Tabery, J. (2015). Mechanisms in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/science-mechanisms/.
  9. Davis, J. B. (2010). Individuals and Identity in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doing, P. (2008). Give me a laboratory and I will raise a discipline: The past, present, and future politics of laboratory studies in STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (eds), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 279–297). Cambridge, MA, USA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Erev, I., & Greiner, B. (2015). The 1-800 critique: Counter-examples, and the future of behavioral economics. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faye, J. (2014). Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/qm-copenhagen/.
  13. Guala, F. (2007). How to do things with experimental economics. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 128–162). Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Henrich, J., et al. (2005). ‘Economic Man’ in cross–cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855.Google Scholar
  15. Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2016a), Constitutive explanations in neuroeconomics: Principles and a case study on money. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(4), 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2016b). Performative Mechanisms. In I. Boldyrev & E. Svetlova (Eds.), Enacting dismal science: New perspectives on the performativity of economics (pp. 53–86). New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  17. Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2017). China’s economic culture: The ritual order of state and markets. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kagel, J. H. (2015). Laboratory experiments: The lab in relationship to field experiments, field data, and economic theory. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 339–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karlan, D. S. (2005). Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1688–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirman, A., & Teschl, M. (2010). Selfish of selfless? The role of empathy in economics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kouchaki, M., Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., & Sousa, C. (2013). Seeing green: mere exposure to money triggers as business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladyman, J., Ross, D., Spurrett, D., & Collier, J. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network.theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (2012). Enquête Sur Les Modes D’existence: Une Anthropologie Des Modernes. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  26. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 31–64.Google Scholar
  27. MacKenzie, D. (2007). Is Economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives market’s. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 54–86). Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mirowski, P., & Somefun, K. (1998). Markets as evolving computational entities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8(4), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muniesa, F., & Callon, M. (2007). Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 163–189). Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…and why. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Papineau, D. (2009). Naturalism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/naturalism/.
  32. Plott, C. R., & Smith, V. L. (2008). Markets. In Charles R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  33. Ross, D. (2005). Economic theory and cognitive science: microexplanations. Cambridge, MA, USA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, A. E. (2008). What have we learned from market design? Economic Journal, 118, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schweikard, D. P., & Schmid, H. B. (2013). Collective intentionality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2013 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/collective-intentionality/.
  36. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmel, G. (1907). Philosophie des Geldes, 2nd ed., reprint 2009. Cologne: Anaconda.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. In The American Economic Review (Vol. 66, No. 2). Papers and Proceedings (pp. 274–279).Google Scholar
  40. Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. The American Economic Review, 93(3), 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sugden, R. (2000). Team preferences. Economics and Philosophy, 16, 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philosophical study of basic social notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tuomela, R. (2007). The philosophy of sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamagishi, T. (2012). Micro–macro dynamics of the cultural construction of reality. A Niche construction approach to culture. In M. J. Gelfland, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 251–308). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zelizer, V. A. (1997). The social meaning of money. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Weber Centre for Advanced Social and Cultural Studies, Erfurt UniversityErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations