David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):383-403 (2001)
This target article is concerned with the implications of the surprisingly different experimental practices in economics and in areas of psychology relevant to both economists and psychologists, such as behavioral decision making. We consider four features of experimentation in economics, namely, script enactment, repeated trials, performance-based monetary payments, and the proscription against deception, and compare them to experimental practices in psychology, primarily in the area of behavioral decision making. Whereas economists bring a precisely defined “script” to experiments for participants to enact, psychologists often do not provide such a script, leaving participants to infer what choices the situation affords. By often using repeated experimental trials, economists allow participants to learn about the task and the environment; psychologists typically do not. Economists generally pay participants on the basis of clearly defined performance criteria; psychologists usually pay a flat fee or grant a fixed amount of course credit. Economists virtually never deceive participants; psychologists, especially in some areas of inquiry, often do. We argue that experimental standards in economics are regulatory in that they allow for little variation between the experimental practices of individual researchers. The experimental standards in psychology, by contrast, are comparatively laissez-faire. We believe that the wider range of experimental practices in psychology reflects a lack of procedural regularity that may contribute to the variability of empirical findings in the research fields under consideration. We conclude with a call for more research on the consequences of methodological preferences, such as the use on monetary payments, and propose a “do-it-both-ways” rule regarding the enactment of scripts, repetition of trials, and performance-based monetary payments. We also argue, on pragmatic grounds, that the default practice should be not to deceive participants. Key Words: behavioral decision making; cognitive illusions; deception; experimental design; experimental economics; experimental practices; financial incentives; learning; role playing.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mathieu Lefebvre, Ferdinand M. Vieider & Marie Claire Villeval (2011). The Ratio Bias Phenomenon: Fact or Artifact? [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 71 (4):615-641.
Mohammed Abdellaoui, Han Bleichrodt & Hilda Kammoun (2013). Do Financial Professionals Behave According to Prospect Theory? An Experimental Study. Theory and Decision 74 (3):411-429.
L. Hall, P. Johansson, B. Tärning, S. Sikström & T. Deutgen (2010). Magic at the Marketplace: Choice Blindness for the Taste of Jam and the Smell of Tea. Cognition 117 (1):54-61.
Tilmann Betsch & Carsten Held (2012). Rational Decision Making: Balancing RUN and JUMP Modes of Analysis. Mind and Society 11 (1):69-80.
Ana C. Santos (2009). Behavioral Experiments: How and What Can We Learn About Human Behavior. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (1):71-88.
Similar books and articles
Ralph Hertwig & Andreas Ortmann (2001). Money, Lies, and Replicability: On the Need for Empirically Grounded Experimental Practices and Interdisciplinary Discourse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):433-444.
Scott A. Huettel & Gregory Lockhead (2001). Variability is Not Uniformly Bad: The Practices of Psychologists Generate Research Questions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):418-419.
Herbert Gintis (2001). The Contribution of Game Theory to Experimental Design in the Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):411-412.
Alvin E. Roth (2001). Form and Function in Experimental Design. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):427-428.
Hasker P. Davis & Robert L. Durham (2001). Economic and Psychological Experimental Methodology: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):405-406.
Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström (2001). Doing It Both Ways – Experimental Practice and Heuristic Context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):413-414.
Ramzi Suleiman (2001). Different Perspectives of Human Behavior Entail Different Experimental Practices. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):429-429.
Marie-Paule Lecoutre & Bruno Lecoutre (2001). Other Scientific Purposes, Other Methodological Ways. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):421-421.
Don Ross (2001). The Game-Theoretic Innocence of Experimental Behavioral Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):426-427.
Charles F. Blaich & Humberto Barreto (2001). Typological Thinking, Statistical Significance, and the Methodological Divergence of Experimental Psychology and Economics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):405-405.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads121 ( #15,167 of 1,707,713 )
Recent downloads (6 months)58 ( #12,878 of 1,707,713 )
How can I increase my downloads?