IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v24y2000i3p267-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental Economics under the Microscope

Author

Listed:
  • Siakantaris, Nikos

Abstract

Although experimental economics has been one of the most rapidly expanding fields in economics in recent years, it has so far attracted little sustained methodological discussion. This paper is intended as a step towards filling the gap, and provides preliminary answers to the following questions. (i) What are distinctive characteristics of the experimental method in economics? (ii) To what extent are the results obtained in the laboratory transferable to non-laboratory situations? (iii) What are the limits of the experimental method in economics? (iv) Why is it that experimentation, which has been so successful in the natural sciences, remains so controversial in the social sciences. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Siakantaris, Nikos, 2000. "Experimental Economics under the Microscope," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(3), pages 267-281, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:3:p:267-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    2. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2004. "¿Los experimentos pueden falsear la teoría de la utilidad esperada?," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 6(10), pages 17-45, January-J.
    3. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Pires Gonçalves, Ricardo, 2008. "Consumer Behavior: Product Characteristics and Quality Perception," MPRA Paper 11142, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00746617 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Andrew Mearman, 2006. "Critical realism in economics and open-systems ontology: A critique," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(1), pages 47-75.
    7. Andrew Mearman, 2012. "Pluralist economics curricula: do they work; and how would we know?," Working Papers 20121203, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    8. Uskali Maki, 2005. "Models are experiments, experiments are models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 303-315.
    9. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," Post-Print halshs-00746617, HAL.
    10. María Caamaño-Alegre & José Caamaño-Alegre, 2019. "Economic experiments versus physical science experiments: an ontology-based approach," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, May.
    11. Karola Bastini & Rainer Kasperzak, 2013. "Erkenntnisfortschritt in der Rechnungslegung durch experimentelle Forschung? — Diskussion methodischer Grundsatzfragen anhand der Entscheidungsnützlichkeit des Performance Reporting," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(7), pages 622-660, December.
    12. Jefferson, Therese & Taplin, Ross, 2012. "Relational aspects of decisions to sell," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 697-704.
    13. Mearman, Andrew, 2014. "How should economics curricula be evaluated?," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 16(PB), pages 73-86.
    14. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    15. Gunessee, Saileshsingh & Lane, Tom, 2023. "Changing perceptions about experimentation in economics: 50 years of evidence from principles textbooks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Martin Jones, 2008. "On the autonomy of experiments in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 391-407.
    17. Irene van Staveren, 2012. "An Evolutionary Efficiency Alternative to the Notion of Pareto Efficiency," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-6, July.
    18. Saileshsingh Gunessee & Tom Lane, 2020. "Is Economics An Experimental Science? A Textbook Perspective," Discussion Papers 2020-16, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Ana C. Santos, 2011. "Experimental Economics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:3:p:267-81. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.