IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v26y2019i4p274-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subject pool effects in price competition games: students versus professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Beyer
  • Eva Tebbe
  • Korbinian von Blanckenburg
  • Elke Kottmann

Abstract

Questioning the external validity of experiments that rely on student participants is an evergreen theme in experimental economics. Yet, there is ambiguous evidence of potential subject-pool bias. We add to the subject-pool debate by enlarging the set of experiments for which subject-pool differences have been studied. In a duopolistic Bertrand market setup designed to test for collusive behaviour, we test two treatments. The first is a baseline treatment, where participants cannot communicate with each other, while the second is a communication treatment in which participants are allowed to communicate. Each treatment is first conducted with students and then replicated with professionals. Our results show that student subjects and professionals differ significantly. However, these differences manifest themselves in quantitative rather than qualitative terms. Professionals do collude more, but their behavioural difference between treatments is similar. Students are thus a valid surrogate, if the research question is qualitative, but results generated by student samples should be handled with caution, if quantitative differences matter.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Beyer & Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg & Elke Kottmann, 2019. "Subject pool effects in price competition games: students versus professionals," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 274-280, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:26:y:2019:i:4:p:274-280
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2018.1467544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2018.1467544
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2018.1467544?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.

    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:taf:apeclt:v:26:y:2019:i:4:p:274-280. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.