Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T16:19:32.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jan Stoop
Jan Stoop*
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 Rotterdam, DR, The Netherlands
*
stoop@ese.eur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports results of a natural field experiment on the dictator game where subjects are unaware that they are participating in an experiment. Three other experiments explore, step by step, how laboratory behavior of students relates to field behavior of a general population. In all experiments, subjects display an equally high amount of pro-social behavior, whether they are students or not, participate in a laboratory or not, or are aware of their participating in an experiment or not. This paper shows that there are settings where laboratory behavior of students is predictive for field behavior of a general population.

Keywords

AltruismDictator gameNatural field experimentExternal validityMisdirected letter technique

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C93: Field Experiments C70: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 304 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-013-9368-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

I would like to thank Aurélien Baillon, Han Bleichrodt, Enrico Diecidue, Dennie van Dolder, Ido Erev, Emir Kamenica, John List, Steven Levitt, Wieland Müller, Charles Noussair, Rogier Potters van Loon, Drazen Prelec, Kirsten Rohde, Ingrid Rohde, three anonymous referees and participants from seminars at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and the University of Chicago for their useful comments. Special thanks to Jan Potters and Peter Wakker for some significant contributions. I would like to thank Thibault van Heeswijk and Bart Stoop for their excellent research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank ERIM for financial support.

References

Aguiar, F., Brañas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Jimenez, N., & Miller, L. (2009). Are women expected to be more generous?. Experimental Economics, 12(1), 93–98. 10.1007/s10683-008-9199-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J., Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Götte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., Potter, R., Rocha, K., & Rustichini, A. (2010). Self selection does not increase other-regarding preferences among adult laboratory subjects, but student subjects may be more self-regarding than adults. IZA Discussion Paper, 5389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy, Amsterdam: Elsevier 1201–1269.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: a theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77, 1607–1636. 10.3982/ECTA7384Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753. 10.1111/1468-0262.00302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312. 10.1162/003355301556419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2005). Social preferences and the response to incentives: evidence from personnel data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 917–962.Google Scholar
Barmettler, F., Fehr, E., & Zehnder, C. (2012). Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(1), 17–34. 10.1016/j.geb.2011.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183–202. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2006.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in real life? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281. 10.1007/s10683-007-9192-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, N., Johnson, E., & Croson, R. (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, 373–398. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadsby, B., Servátka, M., & Song, F. (2010). Gender and generosity: does degree of anonymity or group gender composition matter?. Experimental Economics, 13(3), 299–308. 10.1007/s10683-010-9242-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2011). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: a critical reply to Levitt and List. Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209–219. 10.1257/jep.9.2.209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., & Myers, C. (2010). Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11), 911–920. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBS. (2010). Bevolking op 1 januari. Centraal Bureau voor de Statisktiek.Google Scholar
Charness, G., Haruvy, E., & Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: an Internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 88–103. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869. 10.1162/003355302760193904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221. 10.1257/00028280260344740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleave, B., Nikiforakis, N., & Slonim, R. (2011). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? IZA Discussion Paper, 5488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J., Cain, D., & Dawes, R. (2006). What you don’t know won’t hurtme: costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 193–201. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J., Weber, R., & Kuang, J. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33, 67–80. 10.1007/s00199-006-0153-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171–188. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2001.tb00059.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610. 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etang, A., Fielding, D., & Knowles, S. (2011). Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 15–35. 10.1007/s10683-010-9255-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00236-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Heckman, J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538. 10.1126/science.1168244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Zehnder, C. (2007). Discrimination and in-group favoritism in a citywide trust experiment. IZA Discussion Paper, 2765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Meier, S., & Zehnder, C. (2012). Did we overestimate he role of social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1 10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. 10.1162/003355399556151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369. 10.1006/game.1994.1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A., & Pointner, S. (2012). The external validity of giving in the dictator game: a field experiment using the misdirected letter technique. Experimental Economics. doi:10.1007/s10683-012-9337-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, XLII, 1009–1055. 10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2004). Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies, New York: Oxford University Press 10.1093/0199262055.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367. 10.1126/science.1153808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
Howitt, D., & McCabe, J. (1978). Attitudes do predict behaviour—in mails at least. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 285–286. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00281.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howitt, D., Craven, G., Iveson, C., Kremer, J., McCabe, J., & Rolph, T. (1977). The misdirected letter. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 285–286. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb00231.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.Google Scholar
Kessler, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). External validity of laboratory experiments, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kremer, J., Barry, R., & McNally, A. (1986). The misdirected letter and the quasi-questionnaire: unobtrusive measures of prejudice in Northern Ireland. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 303–309. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01142.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazear, E., Malmendier, U., & Weber, R. (2012). Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1), 136–163.Google Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2007). Viewpoint: on the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40, 347–370. 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.00412.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174. 10.1257/jep.21.2.153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2008). Homo economicus evolves. Science, 319(5865), 909–910. 10.1126/science.1153640CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
List, J. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37. 10.1086/498587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. (2006). Field experiments: a bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 6(2), 1–45.Google Scholar
List, J. (2009). Social preferences: some thoughts from the field. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 563–579. 10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.142958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxoby, R., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winking, J., & Mizer, N. (2013). Natural-field dictator game shows no altruistic giving. Evolution and Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, D. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98. 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stoop supplementary material

Stoop supplementary material
Download Stoop supplementary material(File)
File 40.9 KB