Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T15:56:01.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Blair L. Cleave ,
Nikos Nikiforakis  and
Robert Slonim
Blair L. Cleave
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Nikos Nikiforakis*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Max-Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany
Robert Slonim
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Sydney and IZA, Sydney, Australia
*
e-mail: n.nikiforakis@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory experiments are frequently used to examine the nature of individuals’ social and risk preferences and inform economic theory. However, it is unknown whether the preferences of volunteer participants are representative of the population from which the participants are drawn, or whether they differ due to selection bias. To answer this question, we measured the preferences of 1,173 students in a classroom experiment using a trust game and a lottery choice task. Separately, we invited all students to participate in a laboratory experiment using common recruitment procedures. To evaluate whether there is selection bias, we compare the social and risk preferences of students who eventually participated in a laboratory experiment to those who did not, and find that they do not differ significantly. However, we also find that people who sent less in a trust game were more likely to participate in a laboratory experiment, and discuss possible explanations for this behavior.

Keywords

Selection biasLaboratory experimentsExternal validitySocial preferencesRisk preferences

JEL classification

C90: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 372 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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/s10683-012-9342-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We thank the Editor (David Cooper), two anonymous referees, Jim Andreoni, Tim Cason, Marco Casari, Gary Charness, Rachel Croson, Dirk Engelmann, Ernst Fehr, Simon Gächter, Glenn Harrison, Stephen Leider, John List, Simon Loertscher, Joerg Oechssler and participants at the 2010 Asia-Pacific Meetings of the Economic Science Association at the University of Melbourne, IMEBE 2010 in Bilbao, THEEM 2010 in Thurgau and seminar participants at the University of Mannheim, University of Melbourne, Monash University, the University of Zürich, the Athens University of Economics and Business, the University of Athens, Royal Holloway University of London for comments. We also thank Jeff Borland who allowed us to run the experiment in his class, Nahid Khan who helped coordinate tutors and Viktoriya Koleva for helping to prepare the experimental material. Funding from the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne and the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Sydney is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2009). Experimental economics: rethinking the rules, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. 10.1006/game.1995.1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal, 91, 867–890. 10.2307/2232497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(5), 467–484. 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleave, B. L., & Nikiforakis, N. Slonim, R. (2010). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? (Research Paper No. 1106). Dept. Economics, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 1–17. 10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Meier, S., & Zehnder, C. (in press). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association.Google Scholar
Garbarino, E., & Slonim, R. (2009). The robustness of trust & reciprocity across a heterogeneous population. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(3), 226–240. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Lau, M., & Rutström, E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 498–507. 10.1016/j.jebo.2008.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174. 10.1257/jep.21.2.153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slonim, R., Wang, C., & Garbarino, E. Merrett, D. (2012). Opting-in: participation biases in the lab (IZA Discussion Paper No. 6865).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cleave et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material for: Is There Selection Bias in Laboratory Experiments? The Case of Social and Risk Preferences*
Download Cleave et al. supplementary material(File)
File 346.2 KB