On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study

References

• Abeler J, Nosenzo D (2015) Self-selection into laboratory experiments: Pro-social motives versus monetary incentives. Experiment. Econom. 18(2):195–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Ubaydli O, List JA (2015) On the generalizability of experimental results in economics. Frechette G, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 420–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1988) Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism. J. Public Econom. 35(1):57–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Miller JH (2002) Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2006) Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 60(1):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashraf N, Bohnet I, Piankov N (2006) Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experiment. Econom. 9(3):193–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533(7604):452–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baran NM, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2010) Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the trust game. NBER Working Paper 15654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N (2005) Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. J. Econom. Methodology 12(2):239–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N (2008) Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact? Experiment. Econom. 11(2):122–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N, Cubitt R, Loomes G, Moffatt P, Starmer C, Sugden R (2009) Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules (Princeton University Press, Princeton).Google Scholar
• Barr A, Serneels P (2009) Reciprocity in the workplace. Experiment. Econom. 12(1):99–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barr A, Zeitlin A (2010) Dictator games in the lab and in nature: External validity tested and investigated in Ugandan primary schools. CSAE Working Paper 2010–11, Center for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
• Barr A, Packard T, Serra D (2014) Participatory accountability and collective action: Experimental evidence from Albania. Eur. Econom. Rev. 68:250–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57(1):289–300.Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Statist. 29(4):1165–1188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bekkers R, Wiepking P (2011) A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quart. 40(5):924–973.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Kroger S (2007) On representative social capital. Eur. Econom. Rev. 51(1):183–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Kroger S, van Soest A (2008) Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica 76(4):815–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Kroger S, van Soest A (2011) Preferences, intentions, and expectation violations: A large-scale experiment with a representative subject pool. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 78(3):349–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benz M, Meier S (2008) Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):268–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg J, Dickhaut JW, McCabe KA (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernold E, Gsottbauer E, Ackermann K, Murphy R (2015) Social framing and cooperation: The roles and interaction of preferences and beliefs. ETH Zurich.Google Scholar
• Bluffstone R, Dannenberg A, Martinsson P, Jha P, Bista R (2015) Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal. Group Policy Research Working Paper 7323, World Bank, Washington, DC.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC—A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):122–142.Google Scholar
• Bonferroni CE (1935) Il calcolo delle assicurazioni su gruppi di teste. Studi in Onore del Professore Salvatore Ortu Carboni (Bardi, Rome), 13–60.Google Scholar
• Bouma J, Bulte E, van Soest D (2008) Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management. J. Environ. Econom. Management 56(2):155–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Branas-Garza P (2007) Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. J. Econom. Psych. 28(4):477–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C (2003) Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction (Princeton University Press, Princeton).Google Scholar
• Camerer C (2011) The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. Working paper, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Thaler R (1995) Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. J. Econom. Perspect. 9(2):209–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron L (1999) Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Econom. Inquiry 37(1):47–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardenas JC, Carpenter J (2005) Three themes on field experiments and economic development. Carpenter J, List J, Harrison G, eds. Field Experiments in Economics (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT),71–123.Google Scholar
• Cardenas JC, Chong A, Nopo H (2013) Stated social behaviour and revealed actions: Evidence from six Latin American countries. J. Development Econom. 104:16–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP, Myers CK (2010) Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, reputation, and incentives. J. Public Econom.94(11–12):911–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP, Seki E (2005) Competitive work environments and social preferences: Field experimental evidence from a Japanese fishing community. B.E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 5(2):1–25.Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP, Seki E (2011) Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from fishermen in Toyama Bay. Econom. Inquiry 49(2):612–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP, Connolly C, Myers CK (2008) Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):282–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter JP, Verhoogen E, Burks S (2005) The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Econom. Lett. 86(3):393–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castillo M, Carter MR (2002) The economic impacts of altruism, trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach to social capital. AAE Staff Papers, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cherry TL, Frykblom P, Shogren JF (2002) Hardnose the dictator. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(4):1218–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cleave B, Nikiforakis N, Slonim R (2013) Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experiment. Econom. 16(3):372–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox JC (2004) How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 46(2):260–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gachter S (2010) The science of experimental economics. J. Econom. Behaviour Organ. 73(1):122–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana JR, Cain D, Dawes R (2006) What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator game. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 100:193–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana JR, Weber R, Kuang J (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econom. Theory 33(1):67–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darley JM, Batson CD (1973) “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 27(1):100–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis DD, Holt CA (1993) Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton).Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S (2009) Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):315–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Galizzi MM (2014) Getting policy-makers to listen to field experiments. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 30(4):725–752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durkheim E (1893) The Division of Labor in Society (Alcan, Paris).Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Crowley M (1986) Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psych. Bull. 100(3):283–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (1996) Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games Econom. Behav. 16(2):181–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel C (2011) Dictator games: A meta study. Experiment. Econom. 14(4):583–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Gebhardt G (2016) Social dilemmas in the laboratory and in the field. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 128:85–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ermisch J, Gambetta D, Laurie H, Siedler T, Uhrig SCN (2009) Measuring people’s trust. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A 172(4):749–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exadaktylos F, Espin AM, Branas-Garza P (2013) Experimental subjects are not different. Sci. Rep. 3(1213).Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman J (2009) Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Meier S, Zehnder C (2013) Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(4):839–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gachter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):980–994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gachter S (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868):137–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Leibbrandt A (2011) A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. J. Public Econom. 95(9–10):1144–1155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt K (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Von Rosenbladt B, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2003) A nation-wide laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. CESifo Working Paper 866, CESifo, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree—Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments. Experimenter’s manual. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gachter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):541–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleeson W (2004) Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate the challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 13(2):83–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forsythe R, Horowitz JL, Savin NE, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econom. Behav. 6(3):347–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franzen A, Pointner S (2012) Anonymity in the dictator game revisited. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 81(1):74–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franzen A, Pointner S (2013) The external validity of giving in the dictator game: A field experiment using the misdirected letter technique. Experiment. Econom. 16(2):155–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gachter S, Herrmann B, Thoni C (2004) Trust, voluntary cooperation and socio-economic background: Survey and experimental evidence. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 55(4):505–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garbarino E, Slonim R (2009) The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous population. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 69(3):226–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaeser EL, Laibson DI, Scheinkman JA, Soutter CL (2000) Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econom. 115(3):811–846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeree JK, Holt CA (2001) Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(5):1402–1422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeree JK, Holt CA (2004) A model of noisy introspection. Games Econom. Behav. 46(2):365–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeschl T, Kettner SE, Lohse J, Schwieren C (2015) What do we learn from public good games about voluntary climate action? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Department of Economics Discussion Paper 595, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
• Guala F (2005) The Methodology of Experimental Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurven M, Winking J (2008) Collective action in action: Prosocial behavior in and out of the laboratory. Amer. Anthropol. 110(2):179–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):367–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW (2013) Field experiments and methodological intolerance. J. Econom. Methodology 20(2):103–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2008) Naturally occurring markets and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of the winner’s curse. Econom. J. 118(528):822–843.Google Scholar
• Hennig-Schmidt H, Rockenbach B, Sadrieh A (2010) In search of workers’ real effort reciprocity: A field and laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 8(4):817–837.Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(2):73–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer CF, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath Ret al. (2005). “Economic main” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28(6):795–815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herrmann B, Thoni C, Gachter S (2008) Anti-social punishment across societies. Science 319(5868):1362–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Ortmann A (2001) Experimental practices in economics: A challenge for psychologists? Behav. Brain Sci. 24(3):383–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill K, Gurven M (2004) Economic experiments to examine fairness and cooperation among the Ache Indians of Paraguay. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, eds. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 382–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75(4):800–802.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman E, McCabe K, Smith V (1996) Social distance and other regarding behavior in dictator games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3):653–660.Google Scholar
• Hoffman E, McCabe K, Schachat J, Smith V (1994) Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econom. Behav. 7(3):346–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holm HJ, Danielson A (2005) Tropic trust versus Nordic trust: Experimental evidence from Tanzania and Sweden. Econom. J. 115(503):505–532.Google Scholar
• Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian J. Statist. 6(2):65–70.Google Scholar
• Hommel G (1988) A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 75(2):383–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hopfensitz A, Miquel-Florensa J (2017) Mill ownership and farmer’s cooperative behavior: The case of Costa Rica coffee farmers. J. Institutional Econom. 13(3):623–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson ND, Mislin AA (2011) Trust games: A meta-analysis. J. Econom. Psych. 32(5):865–889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagel JH (2015) Laboratory experiments: The lab in relationship to field experiments, field data, and economic theory. Frechette G, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 339–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan DS (2005) Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(5):1688–1699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB (2013) When will there be gift exchange? Addressing the lab-field debate with a laboratory gift exchange experiment. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Vesterlund L (2015) The external validity of laboratory experiments: The misleading emphasis on quantitative effects. Frechette G, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 391–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kolstad JR, Lindkvist I (2012) Pro-social preferences and self-selection into the public health sector: Evidence from an economic experiment. Health Policy Planning 28(3):320–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krawczyk M (2011) What brings subjects to the lab? Experiment. Econom. 14(4):482–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lagarde M, Blaauw D (2014) Pro-social preferences and self-selection into jobs: Evidence from South Africa nurses. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 107(part A):136–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamba S, Mace R (2011) Demography and ecology drive variation in cooperation across human populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(35):14426–14430.Google Scholar
• Laury SK, Taylor LO (2008) Altruism spillovers: Are behaviors in context-free experiments predictive of altruism toward a naturally occurring public good? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 65(1):9–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt A (2012) Are social preferences related to market performance? Experiment. Econom. 15(4):589–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine RV, Norenzayan A, Philbrick K (2001) Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. J. Cross-Cultural Psych. 32(5):543–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt S, List JA (2007a) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt S, List JA (2007b) Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian J. Econom. 40(2):347–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt S, List JA (2008) Homo economicus evolves. Science 319(5865):909–910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewin K, Lippitt R, White RK (1939) Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” J. Soc. Psych. 10(2):171–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, eds. (2006) The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2004) Young, selfish, and male: Field evidence on social preferences. Econom. J. 114(492):121–149.Google Scholar
• List JA (2006) The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. J. Political Econom. 114(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2007) On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. J. Political Econom. 115(3):482–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2009) Social preferences: Some thoughts from the field. Annual Rev. Econom. 1(1):563–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(2):157–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Cherry TL (2008) Examining the role of fairness in high stakes allocation decisions. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 65(1):1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Reiley D (2008) Field experiments in economics. Durlauf SN, Blume LE, eds. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (Palgrave Macmillan Publishing, London), 2117–2120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Shaikh AM, Yang X (2016) Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics. NBER Working Paper 21875, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G (1999) Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. Econom. J. 109(453):25–34.Google Scholar
• Macrae CN, Johnston L (1998) Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction. Soc. Cognition 16(4):400–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus AAM, Potgieter JL (2015) Will you give him some money? External validity of social preferences in dictator games. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Miguel E, Camerer CF, Casey K, Cohen J, Esterling KM, Gerber A, Glennerster R, et al. (2014) Promoting transparency in social science research. Science 343(6166):30–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Teztlaff J, Altmann DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7):e1000097.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munier B, Zaharia C (2003) High stakes and acceptance behavior in ultimatum bargaining: A contribution from an international experiment. Theory Decision 53(3):187–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ortmann A, Fitzgerald J, Boeing C (2000) Trust, reciprocity, and social history: A re-examination. Experiment. Econom. 3(1):81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oosterbeek H, Sloof R, van de Kuilen G (2004) Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experiment. Econom. 7(2):171–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer DM, Olivola CY, eds. (2011) The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (Psychology Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riedl A, Smeets P (2017) Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds? J. Finance 72(6):2505–2550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romano J, Wolf M (2005) Exact and approximate stepdown methods for multiple hypothesis testing. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100(469):94–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romano J, Wolf M (2010) Balanced control of generalized error rates. Ann. Statist. 38(1):598–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romano J, Shaikh AM, Wolf M (2008) Control of the false discovery rate under dependence using the bootstrap and subsampling. TEST 17(3):417–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenthal R (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psych. Bull. 86(3):638–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross L, Ward A (1996) Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Brown T, Reed ES, Turiel E, eds. Values and Knowledge (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), 103–135.Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1988) Laboratory experimentation in economics: A methodological overview. Econom. J. 98(393):974–1031.Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1995) Introduction to experimental economics. Kagel J, Roth AE, eds. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 3–110.Google Scholar
• Roth AE (2008) What have we learned from market design? Econom. J. 118(527):285–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (2015) Is experimental economics living up to its promise? Frechette G, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 13–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rushton JP, Chrisjohn RD, Fekken GC (1981) The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality Individual Differences 2(4):293–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rustagi D, Engel S, Kosfeld M (2010) Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science 330(6006):961–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schram A (2005) Artificiality: The tension between external and internal validity in economic experiments. J. Econom. Methodol. 12(2):225–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psych. Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP (2014) P-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 9(6):666–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slonim R, Roth A (1998) Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica 66(3):569–596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slonim R, Wang C, Garbarino E, Merrett D (2013) Opting-in: Participation bias in economic experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 90:43–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psychologist 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith A (1759) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (A. Millar, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith VL (2002) Method in experiment: Rhetoric and reality. Experiment. Econom. 5(2):91–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith VL (2003) Constructivist and ecological rationality. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(2):465–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C (1999a) Experimental economics: Hard science or wasteful tinkering? Econom. J. 109(453):5–15.Google Scholar
• Starmer C (1999b) Experiments in economics: Should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats? J. Econom. Methodol. 6(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Reimers S, Harris AJ (2015) On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Sci. 61(3):687–705.Link, Google Scholar
• Stoop J (2013) From the lab to the field: Envelopes, dictators and manners. Experiment. Econom. 17(2):304–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoop J, Noussair CN, van Soest D (2012) From the lab to the field: Cooperation among fishermen. J. Political Econom. 120(6):1027–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torres-Guevara LE, Schluter A (2016) External validity of artefactual field experiments: A study on cooperation, impatience, and sustainability in an artisanal fishery in Colombia. Ecological Econom. 128:187–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Triplett N (1898) The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. Amer. J. Psych. 9(4):507–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Voors M, Bulte E, Kontoleon A, List JA, Turley T (2011) Using artefactual field experiments to learn about the incentives for sustainable forest use in developing economies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(3):329–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Voors M, Turley T, Kontoleon A, Bulte E, List JA (2012) Exploring whether behavior in context-free experiments is predictive of behavior in the field: Evidence from lab and field experiments in rural Sierra Leone. Econom. Lett. 114(3):308–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winking J, Mizer N (2013) Natural-field dictator game shows no altruistic giving. Evolution Human Behav. 34(4):288–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelmer J (2003) Linear public goods experiments: A meta-analysis. Experiment. Econom. 6(3):299–310.Crossref, Google Scholar