IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/fnteco/0800000035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimetrics: A Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Moffatt, Peter G.

Abstract

This monograph aims to survey a range of econometric techniques that are currently being used by experimental economists. It is likely to be of interest both to experimental economists who are keen to expand their skill sets, and also the wider econometrics community who may be interested to learn the sort of econometric techniques that are currently being used by Experimentalists. Techniques covered range from the simple to the fairly advanced. The monograph starts with an overview of treatment testing. A range of treatment tests will be illustrated using the example of a dictator-game giving experiment in which there is a communication treatment. Standard parametric and non-parametric treatment tests, tests comparing entire distributions, and bootstrap tests will all be covered. It will then be demonstrated that treatment tests can be performed in a regression framework, and the important concept of clustering will be explained. The multilevel modelling framework will also be covered, as a means of dealing with more than one level of clustering. Power analysis will be covered from both theoretical and practical perspectives, as a means of determining the sample size required to attain a given power, and also as a means of computing ex-post power for a reported test. We then progress to a discussion of different data types arising in Experimental Economics (binary, ordinal, interval, etc.), and how to deal with them. We then consider the estimation of fully structural models, with particular attention paid to the estimation of social preference parameters from dictator game data, and risky choice models with between-subject heterogeneity in risk aversion. The method maximum simulated likelihood (MSL) is promoted as the most suitable method for estimating models with continuous heterogeneity. We then consider finite mixture models as a way of capturing discrete heterogeneity; that is, when the population of subjects divides into a small number of distinct types. The application used as an example will be the level-k model, in which subject types are defined by their levels of reasoning. We then consider other models of behaviour in games, including the Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) Model. The final area covered is models of learning in games.

Suggested Citation

  • Moffatt, Peter G., 2021. "Experimetrics: A Survey," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 11(1-2), pages 1-152, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:now:fnteco:0800000035
    DOI: 10.1561/0800000035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0800000035
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1561/0800000035?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Andreas Ortman & Le Zhang, 2013. "Exploring the Meaning of Significance in Experimental Economics," Discussion Papers 2013-32, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    3. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    4. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    5. Nathaniel T Wilcox, 2006. "Theories of Learning in Games and Heterogeneity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1271-1292, September.
    6. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    7. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    8. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhaoyang Liu & Simanti Banerjee & Timothy N. Cason & Nick Hanley & Qi Liu & Jintao Xu & Andreas Kontoleon, 2024. "Spatially coordinated conservation auctions: A framed field experiment focusing on farmland wildlife conservation in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1354-1379, August.
    2. Meléndez-Jiménez, Miguel A. & Morales, Antonio J. & Rodero Cosano, Javier, 2022. "Engaging academic staff in the quality assurance system in higher education: A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Jan Niederreiter, 2023. "Broadening Economics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Experimental Evidence," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(1), pages 265-294, March.

    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. Tomáš Jagelka, 2024. "Are Economists’ Preferences Psychologists’ Personality Traits? A Structural Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(3), pages 910-970.
    2. Dixit, Vinayak V. & Harb, Rami C. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2015. "Measuring risk aversion to guide transportation policy: Contexts, incentives, and respondents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 15-34.
    3. Holden , Stein T. & Tilahun , Mesfin, 2019. "The Devil is in the Details: Risk Preferences, Choice List Design, and Measurement Error," CLTS Working Papers 3/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    4. Alam, Jessica & Georgalos, Konstantinos & Rolls, Harrison, 2022. "Risk preferences, gender effects and Bayesian econometrics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 168-183.
    5. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Enrico Diecidue & Emmanuel Kemel & Ayse Onculer, 2022. "Temporal Risk: Utility vs. Probability Weighting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5162-5186, July.
    7. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.
    8. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    9. González-Jiménez, Víctor, 2024. "Incentive design for reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 493-518.
    10. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2022. "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 9820, CESifo.
    11. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2020. "Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 195-209, December.
    12. Anna Conte & John D. Hey & Peter G. Moffatt, 2018. "Mixture models of choice under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 1, pages 3-12, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Pranav Jindal, 2015. "Risk Preferences and Demand Drivers of Extended Warranties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 39-58, January.
    14. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    15. Ouzan, Samuel, 2020. "Loss aversion and market crashes," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 70-86.
    16. Konstanting Lucks & Melanie Lührmann & Joachim K. Winter, 2017. "Peer effects in risky choices among adolescents," IFS Working Papers W17/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    17. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2023. "Risking the future? Measuring risk attitudes towards delayed consequences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 325-344.
    18. Zheng Li & Jingjing Zeng, 2023. "Increasing relative risk taking in a choice context with source-dependent travel time risks," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2441-2460, December.
    19. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    20. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.

    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:now:fnteco:0800000035. 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: Lucy Wiseman (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nowpublishers.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.