How (un-)informative are experiments with “standard subjects” for other social groups? – The case of agricultural students and farmers

This paper analyzes whether there is a gap between agricultural students’ and non-students’ (farmers’) behaviors in economic experiments which are often used to measure risk aversion, impatience, positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity, altruism, and trust. A further question is whether monetary incentives matter in this respect. We use the Holt and Laury procedure (2002) to elicit risk aversion, the procedure according to Laury et al. (2012) to measure impatience, a gift exchange game (Charness et al. 2004) to capture positive reciprocity, an ultimatum bargaining game (Güth et al. 1982) to assess negative reciprocity, a dictator experiment (Engel 2011) to gauge altruism, and a trust game (Kosfeld et al. 2005) to assess trust in others. We find no differences between agricultural students and farmers in their risk aversion, whereas the latter are fund to be considerably more impatient than the former. Positive and negative reciprocity is slightly more pronounced with farmers. Findings regarding altruism in the two groups are mixed and trust is somewhat more pronounced with farmers. The paper challenges approaches that assume that students can be used as standard experimental subjects whose behaviors can be generalized towards other populations.