IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v10y2024i2d10.1007_s40881-024-00179-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eager beavers v. lazy slugs: selection effects in experiments with social preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Eckel

    (Texas A&M University)

  • Rick K. Wilson

    (Rice University)

  • Sora Youn

    (Texas A&M University)

Abstract

We ask whether social preferences measured in subjects who come to the laboratory when invited are systematically different from those of subjects who only respond when an online option is available. Subjects participated in two types of third-party (other–other) dictator games and a trust game, either in the lab or on-line. In the third party dictator games, the dictator divides $20 between two other individuals, one of whom is a member of their in-group. (We also varied types of in-group between a real group and an artificial group.) In the trust game, the first-mover decides how much of the endowment to send to the second-mover. The second-mover receives the amount sent tripled by the experimenter and decides how much to send back to the trustee. Across all the games, we find no statistically significant differences in social preferences measured in-lab and on-line.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Eckel & Rick K. Wilson & Sora Youn, 2024. "Eager beavers v. lazy slugs: selection effects in experiments with social preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 569-577, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00179-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-024-00179-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-024-00179-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-024-00179-1?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. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    2. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    3. Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Luisa Lorè & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2021. "Lab-like findings from online experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 184-193, December.
    4. Catherine Eckel & Nishita Sinha & Rick Wilson, 2023. "The evolution of preferences and charitable giving: a panel study of the university years," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 1073-1092.
    5. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    6. Damon Jones & David Molitor & Julian Reif, 2019. "What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(4), pages 1747-1791.
    7. George A. Akerlof, 1997. "Social Distance and Social Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1005-1028, September.
    8. Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 160-180, May.
    9. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Capraro, Valerio & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2018. "Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 19-23.
    11. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    12. Catherine Eckel & Rick Wilson, 2006. "Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 53-66, April.
    13. Clifford, Scott & Jerit, Jennifer, 2014. "Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 120-131, January.
    14. Eckel, Catherine C. & Wilson, Rick K. & Youn, Sora, 2022. "In-group favoritism in natural and minimal groups," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    15. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. Zhang, Yinjunjie & Hoffmann, Manuel & Sara, Raisa & Eckel, Catherine, 2024. "Fairness preferences revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 278-306.
    2. Alves, Guillermo & Blanchard, Pablo & Burdin, Gabriel & Chávez, Mariana & Dean, Andrés, 2022. "Like principal, like agent? Managerial preferences in employee-owned firms," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 877-899, December.
    3. Guo, Yiting & Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2023. "On the generalizability of using mobile devices to conduct economic experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    5. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    9. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    10. Brandts, Jordi & Solà, Carles, 2010. "Personal relations and their effect on behavior in an organizational setting: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 246-253, February.
    11. Janet Hua Jiang & Peter Norman & Daniela Puzzello & Bruno Sultanum & Randall Wright, 2024. "Is Money Essential? An Experimental Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(9), pages 2972-2998.
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Cicognani, Simona & Romagnoli, Giorgia & Soraperra, Ivan, 2024. "Fostering trust: When the rhetoric of sharing can backfire," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.
    15. 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.
    16. Alfonso, Antonio & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Lomas, Pablo & Prissé, Benjamin & Vasco, Mónica & Vázquez-De Francisco, María J., 2023. "The adventure of running experiments with teenagers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. Burns, Justine, 2006. "Racial stereotypes, stigma and trust in post-apartheid South Africa," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 805-821, September.
    18. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    19. Fei Song & C. Bram Cadsby & Yunyun Bi, 2012. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Guanxi in China: An Experimental Investigation," Management and Organization Review, The International Association for Chinese Management Research, vol. 8(2), pages 397-421, July.
    20. Ert, Eyal & Fleischer, Aliza & Magen, Nathan, 2016. "Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 62-73.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Online experiment; Methodology; Social preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    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:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00179-1. 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.