Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T06:55:00.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“It's for Teaching, not Believing”: Comments on Teaching, Learning, and Problem Solving Through Economic Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Robert G. Nelson  and
Norbert L.W. Wilson
Robert G. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Norbert L.W. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This series of papers is an excellent opportunity to reacquaint agricultural economists in the Southern region with the exciting field of experimental economics and is indeed opportune in light of the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Vernon Smith, considered by many to be the father of experimental economics. Rather than try to share the limelight with the authors on their far-reaching and comprehensive topics, we plan to take this opportunity to share some of our views of the role of experimental economics in the research laboratory and classroom.

Information

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2003 , pp. 361 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

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

Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H., Winkler, R.C., and Winett, R.A.. “Residential Electricity Demand: An Experimental Study.” Review of Economics and Statistics 61(1979):180–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. “Revealing Demand for an Actual Public Good.” Journal of Public Economics 24(1984): 135–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C.. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
Cason, T.N., and Williams, A.W.. “Competitive Equilibrium Convergence in an Posted Offer Market with Extreme Earnings Inequities.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 14(1990):331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D.D., and Holt, C.A.. Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbins, C.L., Boehlje, M., Erickson, S., and Taylor, R.. “Using Games to Teach Farm and Agribusiness Management.” Review of Agricultural Economics 17(1995):247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F.A. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review 35(1945):519–30.Google Scholar
Holt, C.A., Langan, L., and Villamil, A.P.. “Market Power in Oral Double Auctions.” Economic Inquiry 24(1986): 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, R.M., McCue, K.E., and Plott, C.R.. “Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment.” Journal of Public Economics 26(1985): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiranyakul, K. “Utility Function in the Domains of Gains and Losses: An Experimental Study.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1986.Google Scholar
Jung, C.G.Psychological Types. Trans, by Baynes, H. G., rev. by Hull, R.F.C.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976 (originally published in 1921).Google Scholar
Kagel, J.H. “Token Economies and Experimental Economics.” Journal of Political Economics 80(1972):779–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, D., and Fair, J.. The New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Kolb, D.A.Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., and Gillespie, N.. “The Experimental Economist.” Interview of Vernon Smith dated December 2002. Internet site: http://www.reason.com/0212/fe.ml.the.shtml (accessed January 5, 2003).Google Scholar
Marwell, G., and Ames, R.E.. “Economists Free Ride: Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Pubic Goods. IV.” Journal of Public Economics 15(1981):295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkhaus, D.J., Bastian, C.T., Phillips, O.R., and O'Neill, P.D.. “Supply and Demand Risks in Laboratory Forward and Spot Markets: Implications for Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(2000): 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Public Radio. Program broadcast March 1, 1999.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Beil, R.O. Jr. “A Classroom Experiment on Oligopolies.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(1995):263–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Beil, R.O. Jr. “Pricing Strategy Under Monopoly Conditions: An Experiment for the Classroom.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(1994):287–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Bessler, D.A.. “Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules: Experimental Evidence. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1989):363–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pechman, J.A., and Timpane, P.M., eds. Work Incentives and Income Guarantees: The New Jersey Negative Income Tax Experiment. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1975.Google Scholar
Phillips, L., and Edwards, W.. “Conservatism in a Simple Probability Inference Task.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 72(1966):346–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C.R. “Experimental Methods in Political Economy: A Tool for Regulatory Research.” Attacking Regulatory Problems: An Agenda for Research in the 1980's. Ferguson, A.R., ed. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1981.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. “Decision Making and Learning Under Varying Conditions of Reinforcement.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 89(1961): 766–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” American Economic Review 66(1976):274–79.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Markets as Economizers of Information: Experimental Examination of the Hayek Hypothesis.” Economic Inquiry 20(1982a):165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72(1982b):923–55.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L.. “Experimental Methods in Economics.” The New Palgrave: Allocation, Information, and Markets. Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., eds., pp. 94–111. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stael von Holstein, C-A.S.Assessment and Evaluation of Subjective Probability Distributions. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute, 1970.Google Scholar