Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T09:33:50.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Matthias Benz  and
Stephan Meier
Matthias Benz
Affiliation:
Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Stephan Meier*
Affiliation:
Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision-Making, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02210, USA
*
e-mail: stephan.meier@bos.frb.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory experiments are an important methodology in economics, especially in the field of behavioral economics. However, it is still debated to what extent results from laboratory experiments are informative about behavior in field settings. One highly important question about the external validity of experiments is whether the same individuals act in experiments as they would in the field. This paper presents evidence on how individuals behave in donation experiments and how the same individuals behave in a naturally occurring decision situation on charitable giving. While we find evidence that pro-social behavior is more accentuated in the lab, the data show that pro-social behavior in experiments is correlated with behavior in the field.

Keywords

ExperimentsExternal validityMethodologyCharitable giving

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers D01: Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C93: Field Experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity , September 2008 , pp. 268 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bardsley, N. (2005). Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Economic Methodology, 72(2), 239–51.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., & Fehr, E. (2005). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: a guide for social scientists. In Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Gintis, H., Fehr, E., & McElreath, R. (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality—experimental and ethnograhic evidence from 15 small-scale societies (pp. 55–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., & Seki, E. (2004). Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from Fishermen in Toyama bay (Mimeo). Middlebury College.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Liati, A., & Vickrey, B. (2005). They come to play: supply effects in an economic experiment (Mimeo). Department of Economics, Middlebury College.Google Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism and anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., & O'Brien, E. J. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 513–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D. (2006). Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1688–99.Google Scholar
Laury, S. K., & Taylor, L. O. (2006). Altruism spillovers: are behaviors in context-free experiments predictive of altruism towards a naturally occuring public goods (Mimeo). Georgia State University.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007a). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S.D., & List, J. A. (2007b). Viewpoint: on the generalizability of lab behavior to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40(2), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: perspective of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar