IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lui/cesare/2003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lab-like Findings of Non-Lab Experiments: a Methodological Proposal and Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Maria Buso
  • Daniela Di Cagno
  • Sofia De Caprariis
  • Lorenzo Ferrari
  • Vittorio Larocca
  • Luisa Lorè
  • Francesca Marazzi
  • Luca Panaccione
  • Lorenzo Spadoni

Abstract

Like commerce and administrative work, based on physical interaction, also academic work had to be suspended or was at least troubled by serious difficulties caused by social distancing imposed to limit the spread of Covid-19. In particular, experimental game playing was fully hit by the recent pandemic. Although there has been a rise in internet experiments, corresponding data are problematic in various aspects related to experimental control and participants’ interaction. Are there chances to continue research via web-lab experiments but with lab-like findings? We present here a novel methodology to collect lab-like data online allowing for control of experimental subjects and with findings consistent with earlier laboratory research. Our protocol is based on an architecture of connected platforms allowing to preserve the main features of the physical lab. We present the results of an experiment run online following our protocol in Luiss CESARE Lab during the pandemic to discuss the validation of our methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Sofia De Caprariis & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Luisa Lorè & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Lab-like Findings of Non-Lab Experiments: a Methodological Proposal and Validation," Working Papers CESARE 3/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    • Handle: RePEc:lui:cesare:2003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economiaefinanza.luiss.it/sites/economiaefinanza.luiss.it/files/2003_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    5. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    6. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    7. Matthew J C Crump & John V McDonnell & Todd M Gureckis, 2013. "Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    9. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    10. Duch, Matthias L. & Grossmann, Max R.P. & Lauer, Thomas, 2020. "z-Tree unleashed: A novel client-integrating architecture for conducting z-Tree experiments over the Internet," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    11. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    12. Harrison, Glenn W & McCabe, Kevin A, 1996. "Expectations and Fairness in a Simple Bargaining Experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 303-327.
    13. Buso, Irene Maria & De Caprariis, Sofia & Di Cagno, Daniela & Ferrari, Lorenzo & Larocca, Vittorio & Marazzi, Francesca & Panaccione, Luca & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2020. "The effects of COVID-19 lockdown on fairness and cooperation: Evidence from a lablike experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    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. Daniela Di Cagno & Lorenzo Ferrari & Werner Güth & Vittorio Larocca, 2021. "Transparent Dealing instead of Insider Haggling - Experimentally Analyzing an Institutional Choice for Repeated Trade," CEIS Research Paper 523, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 18 Feb 2023.

    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. Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Sofia De Caprariis & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "The Show Must Go On: How to Elicit Lablike Data on the Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Fairness and Cooperation," Working Papers CESARE 2/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    2. Buso, Irene Maria & De Caprariis, Sofia & Di Cagno, Daniela & Ferrari, Lorenzo & Larocca, Vittorio & Marazzi, Francesca & Panaccione, Luca & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2020. "The effects of COVID-19 lockdown on fairness and cooperation: Evidence from a lablike experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    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. Crawford, Ian & Harris, Donna, 2018. "Social interactions and the influence of “extremists”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 238-266.
    5. Andrej Angelovski & Arianna Galliera & Werner Güth, 2019. "Partial Versus General Compulsory Solidarity: an Experimental Analysis," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 249-279, December.
    6. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    7. Roxanne Kovacs & Maurice Dunaiski & Matteo M. Galizzi & Gianluca Grimalda & Rafael Hortala‐Vallve & Fabrice Murtin & Louis Putterman, 2024. "The determinants of trust: findings from large, representative samples in six OECD countries," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(364), pages 1521-1552, October.
    8. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    9. Kettner, Sara Elisa & Waichman, Israel, 2016. "Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 118-130.
    10. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Fest, Sebastian & Kvaløy, Ola & Dijk, Oege, 2022. "Fair advice," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    11. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Imagine Being a Nice Guy: A Note on Hypothetical vs. Incentivized Social Preferences," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201349, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Dirk van Straaten, 2021. "Incentive Schemes in Customer Rating Systems - Comparing the Effects of Unconditional and Conditional Rebates on Intrinsic Motivation," Working Papers Dissertations 71, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    13. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    14. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    15. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    17. Zylbersztejn, Adam & Babutsidze, Zakaria & Hanaki, Nobuyuki, 2020. "Preferences for observable information in a strategic setting: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 268-285.
    18. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-51, July.
    19. 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).
    20. Boosey, Luke & Mark Isaac, R. & Norton, Douglas & Stinn, Joseph, 2020. "Cooperation, contributor types, and control questions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    methodology; experiments; lab-like data; Covid-19.;
    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lui:cesare:2003. 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: Daniela Di Cagno (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deluiit.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.