IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v1y1998i1p87-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Monte Carlo Analysis of the Fisher Randomization Technique: Reviving Randomization for Experimental Economists

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Moir

Abstract

Data created in a controlled laboratory setting are a relatively new phenomenon to economists. Traditional data analysis methods using either parametric or nonparametric tests are not necessarily the best option available to economists analyzing laboratory data. In 1935, Fisher proposed the randomization technique as an alternative data analysis method when examining treatment effects. The observed data are used to create a test statistic. Then treatment labels are shuffled across the data and the test statistic is recalculated. The original statistic can be ranked against all possible test statistics that can be generated by these data, and a p-value can be obtained. A Monte Carlo analysis of t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, and the exact randomization t-test is conducted. The exact randomization t-test compares favorably to the other two tests both in terms of size and power. Given the limited distributional assumptions necessary for implementation of the exact randomization test, these results suggest that experimental economists should consider using the exact randomization test more often. Copyright Economic Science Association 1998

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Moir, 1998. "A Monte Carlo Analysis of the Fisher Randomization Technique: Reviving Randomization for Experimental Economists," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 87-100, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:1:y:1998:i:1:p:87-100
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1009961917752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1009961917752
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1009961917752?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. Kennedy, Peter E, 1995. "Randomization Tests in Econometrics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 85-94, January.
    2. Kenneth S. Chan & Stuart Mestelman & Rob Moir & R. Andrew Muller Moir, 1996. "The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods under Varying Income Distributions," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 54-69, February.
    3. Chan, Kenneth S. & Mestelman, Stuart & Muller, R. Andrew, 2008. "Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 88, pages 831-835, Elsevier.
    4. Stuart Mestelman & Douglas Welland, 1988. "Advance Production in Experimental Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 55(4), pages 641-654.
    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. Fangfang Tan, 2008. "Punishment in a Linear Public Good Game with Productivity Heterogeneity," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 269-293, September.
    2. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2006. "Induced heterogeneity in trust experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 223-235, September.
    3. Chan, Kenneth S. & Godby, Rob & Mestelman, Stuart & Andrew Muller, R., 2002. "Crowding-out voluntary contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 305-317, July.
    4. Greiner, Ben & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2012. "The dynamic interplay of inequality and trust—An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 355-365.
    5. Alexander Smith, "undated". "Group Composition and Conditional Cooperation," Working Papers 2010-11, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 19 Jan 2010.
    6. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kocher, Martin G. & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Equality, equity and incentives: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 32-51.
    7. Agathe Rouaix & Charles Figuières & Marc Willinger, 2015. "The trade-off between welfare and equality in a public good experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 601-623, October.
    8. Felix Koelle, 2012. "Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Privileged Groups: The Role of Capability and Valuation on Public Goods Provision," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 03-08, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    9. Hopkins, Ed & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2006. "Inequality and growth in the presence of competition for status," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 291-296, November.
    10. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    11. Zoe Van der Hoven & Martine Visser & Kerri Brick, 2012. "Contribution Norms in Heterogeneous Groups: A Climate Change Framing," SALDRU Working Papers 77, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    12. John Spraggon, 2003. "Exogenous Targeting Instruments with Heterogeneous Agents," McMaster Experimental Economics Laboratory Publications 2003-02, McMaster University.
    13. Juan-Camilo Cardenas, 2002. "Real wealth and experimental cooperation: Evidence from field experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00019, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Duquette, Nicolas J., 2018. "Inequality and philanthropy: High-income giving in the United States 1917–2012," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 25-41.
    15. Sebastian Prediger, 2011. "How does income inequality affect cooperation and punishment in public good settings?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201138, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    16. Jeff Dayton-Johnson & Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Inequality And Conservation On The Local Commons: A Theoretical Exercise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 577-602, July.
    17. Claudia Keser, 2000. "Le financement des biens publics par des contributions volontaires: Une évaluation à l'aide de l'économie expérimentale," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-37, CIRANO.
    18. Juan-Camilo Cardenas, 2002. "Rethinking local commons dilemmas: Lessons from experimental economics in the field," Artefactual Field Experiments 00020, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Juan Camilo Cárdenas, 2005. "Local Commons and Cross-Effects of Population and Inequality on the Local Provision of environmental Services," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 62, pages 75-121, Enero-Jun.
    20. Kenneth Chan & Stuart Mestelman & Robert Moir & R. Muller, 1999. "Heterogeneity and the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 5-30, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Randomization test; Monte Carlo simulation;

    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:kap:expeco:v:1:y:1998:i:1:p:87-100. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.