IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v25y1987i2p239-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Brookshire, David S
  • Coursey, Don L
  • Schulze, William D

Abstract

This paper examines the parallelism which exists between demand behavior determined from the sale of a private good in an actu al "real world" field setting and in a laboratory auction setting. The demand behavior observed in the two settings is significantly the same leading to the corroboration of the thesis that there is often correspondence between laboratory and real world behavior. Copyright 1987 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L & Schulze, William D, 1987. "The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(2), pages 239-250, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:25:y:1987:i:2:p:239-50
    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. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    2. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
    3. Fisher, Ann & Wheeler, William J. & Zwick, Rami, 1993. "Experimental Methods in Agricultural and Resource Economics: How Useful are They?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 103-116, October.
    4. Tournadre, Fabienne & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2004. "Learning from strikes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 243-264, April.
    5. Hudson, Darren & Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Hanson, Terrill R., 2012. "A Comparison Of Choice Experiments And Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application To Seafood Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Antonio Mileti & Gianluigi Guido & Maria Irene Prete, 2014. "L?applicazione delle nanotecnologie al neuromarketing: rassegna e proposizioni," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 17-35.
    7. James Alm & Kim M. Bloomquist & Michael McKee, 2015. "On The External Validity Of Laboratory Tax Compliance Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(2), pages 1170-1186, April.
    8. Bruno Wichmann & Peter Boxall & Scott Wilson & Orsolya Pergery, 2017. "Auctioning Risky Conservation Contracts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1111-1144, December.
    9. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Conservation tenders: linking theory and experiments for policy assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-23.
    10. Arango, Santiago & Moxnes, Erling, 2012. "Commodity cycles, a function of market complexity? Extending the cobweb experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 321-334.
    11. Abdullah Yavas & C. Sirmans, 2005. "Real Options: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 27-52, August.
    12. Fiona MacPhail, 1998. "Moving Beyond Statistical Validity in Economics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 119-149, November.
    13. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    14. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1989. "Application Of Experimentatal Economics Concepts And Precepts To Cvm Field Survey Procedures," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Justin Dijk & Erik Ansink, 2018. "Conservation auctions, collusion and the endowment effect," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-093/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.

    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:ecinqu:v:25:y:1987:i:2:p:239-50. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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.