IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v111y2024ics2214804324000582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing a policy intervention in the lab: differences between students and non-students in switching bank accounts

Author

Listed:
  • Proestakis, Antonios
  • Marandola, Ginevra
  • Lourenço, Joana S.
  • van Bavel, René

Abstract

The reliance on student samples has long been a subject of debate in experimental approaches to studying behaviour. We contribute to this discussion by looking at differences in financial behaviour between a student and a non-student sample in three sets of lab experiments conducted in Spain, Germany and Poland (n=857). Participants from both samples switched more often and made better financial decisions after they received a message encouraging them to switch financial service providers. While the size of the effect on switching frequency was comparable between the two samples, the effect on switching quality was significantly stronger on non-students. Further analysis suggests this is due to a better performance of students before the prompt leaving less room for improvement by the reminder. Results suggest that experimental evidence derived from students should be generalized with caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Proestakis, Antonios & Marandola, Ginevra & Lourenço, Joana S. & van Bavel, René, 2024. "Testing a policy intervention in the lab: differences between students and non-students in switching bank accounts," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:111:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324000582
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000582
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102220?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    2. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    4. Paul Klemperer, 1995. "Competition when Consumers have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(4), pages 515-539.
    5. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2008. "Planning and Financial Literacy: How Do Women Fare?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 413-417, May.
    6. Jon Anderson & Stephen Burks & Jeffrey Carpenter & Lorenz Götte & Karsten Maurer & Daniele Nosenzo & Ruth Potter & Kim Rocha & Aldo Rustichini, 2013. "Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: evidence from one college student and two adult samples," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 170-189, June.
    7. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    8. Francesco Guala & Luigi Mittone, 2005. "Experiments in economics: External validity and the robustness of phenomena," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 495-515.
    9. repec:feb:natura:0056 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Alexander W. Cappelen & Knut Nygaard & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "Social Preferences in the Lab: A Comparison of Students and a Representative Population," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(4), pages 1306-1326, October.
    11. Rene Bekkers, 2007. "Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00102, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    13. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    14. Michael D. Grubb, 2015. "Consumer Inattention and Bill-Shock Regulation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 219-257.
    15. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2010. "Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-224, February.
    16. Nicola Branzoli, 2016. "Price dispersion and consumer inattention: evidence from the market of bank accounts," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1082, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    17. Andersen, Steffen & Campbell, John Y. & Meisner-Nielsen, Kasper & Ramadorai, Tarun, 2014. "Inattention and Inertia in Household Finance: Evidence from the Danish Mortgage Market," Scholarly Articles 17492179, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    18. Steven Levitt & John List, 2008. "Homo economicus evolves," Artefactual Field Experiments 00095, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Depositario, Dinah Pura T. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M. & Wu, Ximing & Laude, Tiffany P., 2009. "Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 122-124, February.
    21. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    22. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
    23. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    24. Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Interest rate changes and borrower search behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 172-189.
    25. repec:feb:framed:0077 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Richard R. W. Brooks & Alexander Stremitzer & Stephan Tontrup, 2017. "Stretch It but Don't Break It: The Hidden Cost of Contract Framing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 399-426.
    27. Belot, Michele & Duch, Raymond & Miller, Luis, 2015. "A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 26-33.
    28. Arthur Schram, 2005. "Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 225-237.
    29. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    30. Felix Bader & Bastian Baumeister & Roger Berger & Marc Keuschnigg, 2021. "On the Transportability of Laboratory Results," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1452-1481, August.
    31. Florian Heiss & Daniel McFadden & Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann & Bo Zhou, 2021. "Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(9), pages 2737-2781, September.
    32. Armin Falk & Stephan Meier & Christian Zehnder, 2013. "Do Lab Experiments Misrepresent Social Preferences? The Case Of Self-Selected Student Samples," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 839-852, August.
    33. repec:feb:artefa:0095 is not listed on IDEAS
    34. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    35. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "How much can we learn about voluntary climate action from behavior in public goods games?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Jorge N Zumaeta, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Seven Standard Experimental Paradigms Comparing Student to Non-student," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 13(2), pages 22-33.
    3. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    4. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Grimm, Veronika & Karakostas, Alexandros, 2020. "Bribing to Queue-Jump: An experiment on cultural differences in bribing attitudes among Greeks and Germans," MPRA Paper 102775, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Yariv, Leeat & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," CEPR Discussion Papers 13015, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2018. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," CESifo Working Paper Series 7136, CESifo.
    7. Thomas Epper & Julien Senn & Ernst Fehr, 2023. "Social preferences across subject pools: students vs. general population," ECON - Working Papers 435, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2024.
    8. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    10. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    11. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    12. Ernst Fehr & Thomas Epper & Julien Senn, 2023. "The Missing Type: Where Are the Inequality Averse (Students)?," Working Papers hal-04362826, HAL.
    13. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    14. Batrancea, Larissa M. & Kudła, Janusz & Błaszczak, Barbara & Kopyt, Mateusz, 2022. "Differences in tax evasion attitudes between students and entrepreneurs under the slippery slope framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 464-482.
    15. Toke R. Fosgaard, 2018. "Cooperation stability: A representative sample in the lab," IFRO Working Paper 2018/08, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2015. "What do we learn from public good games about voluntary climate action? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Working Papers 0595, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    17. Gruener, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2021. "How (un-)informative are experiments with “standard subjects” for other social groups? – The case of agricultural students and farmers," SocArXiv psda5, Center for Open Science.
    18. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    20. Tiziana Medda & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2021. "Lab-Sophistication: Does Repeated Participation in Laboratory Experiments Affect Pro-Social Behaviour?," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic experiment; Student sample; Switching; Financial behaviour; External validity; Policy intervention;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets
    • G51 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance - - - Household Savings, Borrowing, Debt, and Wealth
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:111:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324000582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.