Context and interpretation in laboratory experiments: The case of reciprocity

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract. The existing literature acknowledges that a mismatch between the experimenter's and the subjects' models of an experimental task can adversely affect the interpretation of data from laboratory experiments. We discuss why the two common experimental designs (between-subjects and within-subjects) used to conduct experiments may fail to sufficiently account for this concern. An alternative design for laboratory experiments is proposed which may alleviate this concern especially in studies of social preferences. The proposed design is used to answer some questions that have attracted continued attention in the literature on social preferences in general and reciprocity in particular. Terms of use: Documents in

Playing a Game or Making a Decision? Methodological Issues in the Measurement of Distributional Preferences

“…On average, we find that subjects in RUT behave more prosocially than in RCT. That is, there is a significant difference in mean SVO scores between subjects who made choices under role uncertainty (mean = 19.49, sd = 14.19) 10 and subjects who made choices under role certainty (mean = 16.46, sd = 13.06, t(95) = −2.222, p = 0.029, two-sided). Our experiment cannot tell whether this result is driven by fairness considerations or by the cost of expressing generosity.…”

“…A second question the data from our experiment will allow us to address is whether the way roles are assigned in resource allocation tasks affects behavior in systematic ways. In this regard, Levati et al [10] emphasize the importance of exercising control over contextual features with the goal of reducing the likelihood of a mismatch between a subject's model of a social context and the experimenter's model of the corresponding social context. To achieve this goal, information on how different contexts influence subjects' perceptions and behavior is required.…”

The Role of Framing, Inequity and History in a Corruption Game: Some Experimental Evidence

“…it is not clear when we can be confident that the participants' models match the experimenter's." Levati, Miettinen and Rai (2011, p. 847) [45] add: "An important component of the requirement that a participant's model of a situation matches the experimenter's model is that the participant and the experimenter should attach the same meanings to the elements in the action sets of the agents involved in an interaction." Taken together, the evidence presented here highlights the importance of suitable framing, via the use of emotive language, for studying corruption and/or other types of unethical behaviour in the lab.…”

Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence

“…For one thing, Fehr and Rockenbach use context free instructions like "transfer" and back-transfer" to describe the interactions. As Levati, Miettinen and Rai (2011) and Samuelson (2005) point out, when relying on neutral language instructions it is not always clear -and this is particularly true for studies on social preferences -whether the participant's perception of the game exactly matches that of the experimenter's and whether the two interpret the elements in the action set in exactly the same way. There is also no obvious difference in the status of the trustor and the trustee or well-defined property rights in the Fehr and Rockenbach study.…”