Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-mzsfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T16:19:27.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eager beavers v. lazy slugs: selection effects in experiments with social preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Catherine Eckel ,
Rick K. Wilson Open the ORCID record for Rick K. Wilson [Opens in a new window]  and
Sora Youn
Catherine Eckel*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA
Rick K. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
Sora Youn*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA
*
ceckel@tamu.edu
rkw@rice.edu
sorayoun@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We ask whether social preferences measured in subjects who come to the laboratory when invited are systematically different from those of subjects who only respond when an online option is available. Subjects participated in two types of third-party (other–other) dictator games and a trust game, either in the lab or on-line. In the third party dictator games, the dictator divides $20 between two other individuals, one of whom is a member of their in-group. (We also varied types of in-group between a real group and an artificial group.) In the trust game, the first-mover decides how much of the endowment to send to the second-mover. The second-mover receives the amount sent tripled by the experimenter and decides how much to send back to the trustee. Across all the games, we find no statistically significant differences in social preferences measured in-lab and on-line.

Keywords

Online experimentMethodologySocial preferences

JEL classification

C90: General C81: Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data • Data Access

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 10 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Behavioral and Experimental Economics for Innovative Policy-Making (Articles 1 to 3) , December 2024 , pp. 569 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2024.

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

Akerlof, G. (1997). Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, 65, 5, 1005–1028. 10.2307/2171877.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.1995.1027.Google Scholar
Brañas-Garza, P, Capraro, V, Rascon-Ramirez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on mechanical turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170, 19–23. 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022.Google Scholar
Brañas-Garza, P, Jorrat, D, Espín, AM, Sánchez, A. (2023). Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: Lab, field and online evidence. Experimental Economics, 26, 2, 412–434. 10.1007/s10683-022-09776-5.Google Scholar
Buso, IM, Cagno, DD, Ferrari, L, Larocca, V, Loré, L, Marazzi, F, Panaccione, L, Spadoni, L. (2021). Lab-like findings from online experiments. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 7, 2, 184–193. 10.1007/s40881-021-00114-.Google Scholar
Cleave, B, Nikiforakis, N, Slonim, R. (2013). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experimental Economics, 16, 3, 372–382. 10.1007/s10683-012-9342-8.Google Scholar
Clifford, S, Jerit, J. (2014). Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 2, 120–131. 10.1017/xps.2014.5.Google Scholar
Dandurand, F, Shultz, T, Onishi, K. (2008). 05. Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 428–34. 10.3758/BRM.40.2.428.Google Scholar
Eckel, C, Sinha, N, Wilson, R. (2023). The evolution of preferences and charitable giving: A panel study of the university years. Oxford Economic Papers, 2, 1–21. 10.1093/oep/gpad030.Google Scholar
Eckel, C, Wilson, R. (2006). Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners. Experimental Economics, 9, 53–66. 10.1007/s10683-006-4307-4.Google Scholar
Eckel, C, Wilson, R, Youn, S. (2022). In-group favoritism in natural and minimal groups. Economics Letters, 219, 10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110794.Google Scholar
Hergueux, J, Jacquemet, N. (2015). Social preferences in the online laboratory: A randomized experiment. Experimental Economics, 18, 2, 251–283. 10.1007/s10683-014-9400-5.Google Scholar
Horton, J, Rand, D, Zeckhauser, R. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 3, 399–425. 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9.Google Scholar
Iriberri, N, Rey-Biel, P. (2011). The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games. Experimental Economics, 14, 160–180. 10.1007/s10683-010-9261-5.Google Scholar
Jones, D., Molitor, D., & Reif, J. (2019). What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 1747–1791. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz023 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-pdf/134/4/1747/32666232/qjz023.pdf .Google ScholarPubMed
Peysakhovich, A, Nowak, M. (2014). 09. Humans display a ’cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5, 4939. 10.1038/ncomms5939.Google Scholar
Prissè, B, Jorrat, D. (2022). Lab vs online experiments: No differences. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 100, 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101910.Google Scholar
Westfall, PH, Young, SS. (1993). Resampling-based multiple testing: Examples and methods for p-value adjustment, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eckel et al. supplementary material

Eckel et al. supplementary material
Download Eckel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 5.9 MB