Methodological Foundations

  • Joachim WeimannEmail author
  • Jeannette Brosig-Koch
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)


Now that we have prepared the stage for experimental economics in the first chapter, the second chapter deals with the methodological foundations. The times are long gone when economists “just did an experiment” to see what happens when you let subjects play games. In the meantime, methodological standards and procedures have evolved. Following these procedures is an important prerequisite for obtaining experimental results that can claim to meet the scientific standards of the economics profession. We have put the most important methodological fundamentals into groups, each of which is based on one component of an experiment.


  1. Abbink, K., & Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2006). Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abeler, J., & Nosenzo, D. (2015). Self-selection into laboratory experiments: Pro-social motives versus monetary incentives. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberti, F., & Güth, W. (2013). Studying deception without deceiving participants: An experiment of deception experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J., Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Gotte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., Potter, R., Rocha, K., & Rustichini, A. (2013). Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: Evidence from one college student and two adult samples. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M., & Milyo, J. (2008). Inequality and public good provision: An experimental analysis. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1010–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andreoni, J. (1988). Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 37, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics, 11(2), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrera, D., & Simpson, B. (2012). Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods Research, 41(3), 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barmettler, F., Fehr, E., & Zehnder, C. (2012). Big experimenter is watching you! An-onymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belot, M., Duch, R., & Miller, L. (2015). A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 113, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benndorf, V., Rau, H., Sölch, C. (2018). Minimizing learning behavior in experiments with repeated real-effort tasks. SSRN: or
  13. Ben-Ner, A., Putterman, L., & Ren, T. (2011). Lavish returns on cheap talk: Two-way communication in trust games. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Binmore, K., Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1985). Testing noncooperative bargaining theory: A preliminary study. American Economic Review, 75(5), 1178–1180.Google Scholar
  15. Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. The Economic Journal, 91(364), 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., Koch, A. K., & Normann, H. T. (2010). Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem? Experimental Economics, 13(4), 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blaufuß, K., Fochmann, M., Hundsdoerfer, J., Kiesewetter, D., & Weimann, J. (2013). Net wage illusion in a real-effort experiment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(2), 476–484.Google Scholar
  19. Blume, A., & Ortmann, A. (2000). The effect of costless pre-play communication: Experimental evidence from a game with Pareto-ranked equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 132, 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bortolotti, S., Casari, M., & Pancotto, F. (2015). Norms of punishment: Experiments with students and the general population. Economic Enquiry, 53, 1207–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bonetti, S. (1998). Experimental economics and deception. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brañas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brañas-Garza, P., Bucheli, M., Espinosa, M. P., & García-Muñoz, T. (2013). Moral cleansing and moral licenses: Experimental evidence. Economics & Philosophy, 29(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2003). Truth or consequences: An experiment. Management Science, 49(1), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brosig, J., Weimann, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2003). The effect of communication media on cooperation. German Economic Review, 4(2), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Brosig, J., Weimann, J., & Yang, C. L. (2004). The hot versus cold effect in a simple bargaining experiment. Experimental Economics, 6(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Brosig, J., Heinrich, T., Riechmann, T., Schöb, R., & Weimann, J. (2010). Laying off or not? The influence of framing and economics education. International Review of Economics Education, 9, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Brosig-Koch, J., & Heinrich, T. (2018). The role of communication content and reputation in the choice of transaction partners: A study based on field and laboratory data. Games and Economic Behavior, 112, 49–66.Google Scholar
  31. Brosig-Koch, J., Helbach, C., Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (2011). Still different after all these years: Solidarity behavior in East and West Germany. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1373–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Brosig-Koch, J., Riechmann, T., & Weimann, J. (2017). The dynamics of behavior in modified dictator games. PLoS One, 12(4), e0176199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Brüggen, A., & Strobel, M. (2007). Real effort versus chosen effort in experiment. Economics Letters, 96, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bruttel, L., & Kamecke, U. (2012). Infinity in the lab. How do people play repeates games. Theory and Decision, 72, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Buchan, N. R., Johnson, E. J., & Croson, R. T. (2006). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Burnham, T., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (2000). Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cachon, G., & Camerer, C. (1996). Loss avoidance and forward induction in experimental coordination games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 166–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cappelen, A. W., Nygaard, K., Sørensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2015). Social preferences in the lab: A comparison of students and a representative population. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1306–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Easy come, easy go. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Carlsson, F., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Nam, P. K. (2014). Social preferences are stable over long periods of time. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74, 1579–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2005). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: Evidence from the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(3), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cherry, T. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2008). Self-interest, sympathy and the origin of endowments. Economics Letters, 101(1), 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public good experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Cleave, B. L., Nikiforakis, M., & Slonim, R. (2013). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Clot, S., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2014). Smug alert! Exploring self-licensing behavior in a cheating game. Economics Letters, 123(2), 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Cojoc, D., & Stoian, A. (2014). Dishonesty and charitable behavior. Experimental Economics, 17(4), 717–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Cooper, D. (2014). A note on deception in economic experiments. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Cooper, R., DeJong, D. V., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. W. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12, 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Costa-Gomes, M. A., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Stated beliefs and play in normal-form games. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 729–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Cox, J. C., & Deck, A. A. (2005). On the nature of reciprocal motives. Economic Inquiry, 43(3), 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Cox, J. C., Robertson, B., & Smith, V. L. (1982). Theory and behavior of single object auctions. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1–43). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  58. Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, V., & Schmidt, U. (2015). Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Cox, J. C., Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. M. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1392–1412.Google Scholar
  60. Crawford, V. (1998). A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic Theory, 78(2), 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Csukás, C., Fracalanza, P., Kovács, T., & Willinger, M. (2008). The determinants of trusting and reciprocal behaviour: Evidence from an intercultural experiment. Journal of Economic Development, 33(1), 71–95.Google Scholar
  62. Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Rand, D. G. (2013). Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Dufwenberg, M., Gächter, S., & Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2011). The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2004). Promises, threats and fairness. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Nikiforakis, N. (2011). Relative earnings and giving in a real-effort experiment. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3330–3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Erhard, K.-A., & Keser, C. (1999). Mobility and cooperation: On the run (Scientific series). Montreal: CIRANO, 99s-24.Google Scholar
  69. Exadaktylos, F., Espín, A. M., & Branas-Garza, P. (2013). Experimental subjects are not different. Scientific Reports, 3, 1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Fahr, R., & Irlenbusch, B. (2000). Fairness as a constraint on trust in reciprocity: Earned property rights in a reciprocal exchange experiment. Economics Letters, 66, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Falk, A., Meier, S., & Zehnder, C. (2013). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 839–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Farrell, J., & Rabin, M. (1996). Cheap talk. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Fehr, E., Kirchler, E., Weichbold, A., & Gächter, S. (1998). When social norms over-power competition: Gift exchange in experimental labor markets. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(2), 324–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism–experimental evidence and new theories. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity (Vol. 1, pp. 615–691). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  76. Feltovich, N. (2011). What’s to know about laboratory experimentation in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 100(1), 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Fochmann, M., & Weimann, J. (2013). The effects of tax salience and tax experience on individual work efforts in a framed field experiment. Public Finance Analysis, 69, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Fonseca, M. A., & Normann, H. T. (2008). Mergers, asymmetries and collusion: Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal, 118(527), 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Fonseca, M. A., & Normann, H. T. (2012). Explicit vs. Tacit collusion – The impact of communication in oligogoply experiments. European Economic Review, 56, 1759–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bar-gaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit co-operation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Fréchette, G. R., & Schotter, A. (2015). Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87(4), 746–755.Google Scholar
  87. Friedman, D. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1374–1378.Google Scholar
  88. Fryer, R. G. (2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(2), 373–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Geanakoplos, J. D., Pearce, J. D., & Stacchetti, E. (1989). Psychological games and sequential rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 1(1), 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Gill, D., & Prowse, V. (2012). A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. American Economic Review, 102(1), 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Goerg, S. J., Hennig-Schmidt, H., Walkowitz, G., & Winter, E. (2016). In wrong anticipation-miscalibrated beliefs between Germans, Israelis, and Palestinians. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Greiner, B., Güth, W., & Zultan, R. (2012). Social communication and discrimination: A video experiment. Experimental Economics, 15, 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Grimm, V., & Mengel, F. (2011). Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games. Economics Letters, 111(2), 113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Harbring, C. (2006). The effect of communication in incentive systems – An experimental study. Managerial Decision Economics, 27, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Harrison, G. W. (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions. American Economic Review, 79(4), 749–762.Google Scholar
  101. Harrison, G. W. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1426–1443.Google Scholar
  102. Harrison, G. W. (2007). House money effects in public good experiments: Comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Harrison, G. W., Martínez-Correa, J., & Swarthout, J. T. (2013). Inducing risk neutral preferences with binary lotteries: A reconsideration. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 94, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Harrison, G. W., Martínez-Correa, J., & Swarthout, J. T. (2015). Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Research in Experimental Economics) (Vol. 12, pp. 41–196). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. He, S., Offerman, T., & van de Ven, J. (2016). The sources of the communication gap. Management Science, 63, 2832–2846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Hey, J. D. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. L. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Holt, C. A., & Smith, A. M. (2009). An update on Bayesian updating. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Irlenbusch, B., & Sutter, M. (2006). An experimental analysis of voting in the Sta-bility and Growth Pact in the European Monetary Union. Public Choice, 129(3–4), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Isaac, R. M., Walker, J. M., & Thomas, S. H. (1984). Divergent evidence on free riding: An experimental examination of possible explanations. Public Choice, 43(2), 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Isaac, R. M., & Walker, J. M. (1988). Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contributions mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Ivanov, A. (2011). Attitudes to ambiguity in one-shot normal-form games: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 71(2), 366–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Jamison, J., Karlan, D., & Schechter, L. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (1992). Theory and misbehavior in first-price auctions: Comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1379–1391.Google Scholar
  121. Kamecke, U. (1997). Rotations: Matching schemes that efficiently preserve the best reply structure of a one shot game. International Journal of Game Theory, 26(3), 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Karni, E. (2009). A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica, 77(2), 603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Kartik, N. (2009). Strategic communication with lying costs. The Review of Eonomic Studies, 76, 1359–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Kimball, M. S. (1990). Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 58(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Kimball, M. S. (1992). Precautionary motives for holding assets. In P. Newman, M. Milgate, & J. Falwell (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of money and finance (Vol. 3, pp. 158–161). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  126. Kroll, E., Morgenstern, R., Neumann, T., Schosser, S., & Vogt, B. (2014). Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Kroll, S., Cherry, T. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Krupka, E. L., & Weber, R. A. (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Laury, S. K., Walker, J. M., & Williams, A. W. (1995). Anonymity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1175–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(3), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. The Economic Journal, 109(453), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Manski, C. F. (2002). Identification of decision rules in experiments on simple games of proposal and response. European Economic Review, 46(4), 880–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments on the provision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 15(3), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. McDaniel, T., & Starmer, C. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 403–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Mellström, C., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Crowding out in blood donation: Was Titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 845–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Merlo, A., & Schotter, A. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1413–1425.Google Scholar
  141. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Muehlbacher, S., & Kirchler, E. (2009). Origin of endowments in public good games: The impact of effort on contributions. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Niederle, M. (2015). Intelligent design: The relationship of economic theory to experiments: Treatment driven experiments. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Nyarko, Y., & Schotter, A. (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70(3), 971–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (1999). Types and patterns: An experimental east-west comparison of cooperation and solidarity. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Offerman, T. J. S., & Sonnemans, J. H. (2001). Is the quadratic scoring rule behaviorally incentive compatible?. CREED Working Paper.Google Scholar
  147. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., Van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). A truth serum for non-bayesians: Correcting proper Scoring Rules for risk attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1461–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Ortmann, A., & Hertwig, R. (2002). The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics, 5, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Oxoby, R. J., & McLeish, K. N. (2004). Sequential decision and strategy vector methods in ultimatum bargaining: Evidence on the strength of other-regarding behavior. Economics Letters, 84(3), 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Ploner, M., & Regner, T. (2013). Self-image and moral balancing: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 374–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Pruitt, D. G. (1967). Reward structure and cooperation: The decomposed Prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Rankin, F. W. (2003). Communication in ultimatum games. Economics Letters, 81(2), 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Riechmann, T., & Weimann, J. (2008). Competition as a coordination device: Experimental evidence from a minimum effort coordination game. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(2), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Roth, A. E. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 253–348). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  156. Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. (1979). Information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86(6), 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Roux, C., & Thöni, C. (2015). Do control questions influence behavior in experiments. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Rubinstein, A. (2006). A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. The Economic Journal, 116, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Rydval, O., & Ortmann, A. (2005). Loss avoidance as selection principle: Evidence from simple stag-hunt games. Economics Letters, 88(1), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Sass, M., Timme, F., & Weimann, J. (2018). The Cooperation of Pairs. Games, 9, 68. Scholar
  161. Sass, M., & Weimann, J. (2015). Moral self-licensing and the direct touch effect, Cesifo Working Paper 5174.Google Scholar
  162. Schotter, A., & Trevino, I. (2014). Belief elicitation in the laboratory. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Selten, R. (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In H. Sauermann (Hrsg.): Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168). Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  164. Selten, R., Sadrieh, A., & Abbink, K. (1999). Money does not induce risk neutral behavior, but binary lotteries do even worse. Theory and Decision, 46, 211–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.Google Scholar
  166. Sturm, B., & Weimann, J. (2007). Unilateral emissions abatement: An experiment. In T. L. Cherry, J.-s. F. Shogren, & S. Kroll (Eds.), Experimental methods, environmental economics (pp. 157–183). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  167. Sutter, M., & Weck-Hannemann, H. (2003). Taxation and the veil of ignorance - a real effort experiment on the Laffer curve. Public Choice, 115, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Sutter, M., & Strassmair, C. (2009). Communication, cooperation and collusion in team tournaments – An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 66(1), 506–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015). Belief elicitation: A horse race among Thruth serums. The Economic Journal, 125, 2116–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Vanberg, C. (2008). Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica, 76(6), 1467–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., & Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.Google Scholar
  172. Vieider, F. M. (2011). Separating real incentives and accountability. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Volk, S., Thöni, C., & Ruigrok, W. (2012). Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2), 664–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42(8), 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Weber, R. A. (2003). Learning’with no feedback in a competitive guessing game. Games and Economic Behavior, 44(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations