Experimental economists are leaving the reservation. They are recruiting subjects in the field rather than in the classroom, using field goods rather than induced valuations, and using field context rather than abstract terminology in instructions. We argue that there is something methodologically fundamental behind this trend. Field experiments differ from laboratory experiments in many ways. Although it is tempting to view field experiments as simply less controlled variants of laboratory experiments, we argue that to do so would be to seriously mischaracterize them. What passes for “control” in laboratory experiments might in fact be precisely the opposite if it is artificial to the subject or context of the task. We propose six factors that can be used to determine the field context of an experiment: the nature of the subject pool, the nature of the information that the subjects bring to the task, the nature of the commodity, the nature of the task or trading rules applied, the nature of the stakes, and the environment that subjects operate in. Author(s): Glenn W. Harrison 1, | John A. List 2 1Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida. 2Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Department of Economics, University of Maryland, and NBER. | | | | This article has been cited by: | |
1.  | Peter Bohm: Father of field experiments. Martin Dufwenberg, Glenn W. Harrison. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 213-220 CrossRef |
2.  | Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Daniel Rondeau, John A. List. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 253-267 CrossRef |
3.  | How Much Does Expertise Reduce Behavioral Biases? The Case of Anchoring Effects in Stock Return Estimates. Markku Kaustia, Eeva Alho, Vesa Puttonen. Financial Management | Volume: 37 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 391-412 CrossRef |
4.  | Introduction to field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity. John A. List. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 203-212 CrossRef |
5.  | Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Francisco Alpizar, Fredrik Carlsson, Olof Johansson-Stenman. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 299-314 CrossRef |
6.  | Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Catherine C. Eckel, Philip J. Grossman. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 234-252 CrossRef |
7.  | Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Jeffrey Carpenter, Cristina Connolly, Caitlin Knowles Myers. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 282-298 CrossRef |
8.  | Experimental methods for environment and development economics. MARIAH D. EHMKE, JASON F. SHOGREN. Environment and Development Economics | Pps: 1 CrossRef |
9.  | LOST IN STATE SPACE: ARE PREFERENCES STABLE?*. Steffen Andersen, Glenn W. Harrison, Morten I. Lau, E. Elisabet Rutström. International Economic Review | Volume: 49 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 1091-1112 CrossRef |
10.  | Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students. Vivi Alatas, Lisa Cameron, Ananish Chaudhuri, Nisvan Erkal, Lata Gangadharan. Experimental Economics CrossRef |
11.  | Subjective relative income and lottery ticket purchases. Emily Haisley, Romel Mostafa, George Loewenstein. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making | Volume: 21 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 283-295 CrossRef |
12.  | Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström. Experimental Economics CrossRef |
13.  | An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism. Jayson L. Lusk, Deacue Fields, Walt Prevatt. American Journal of Agricultural Economics | Volume: 90 | Issue: 2 | Pps: 487-498 CrossRef |
14.  | Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences. Steffen Andersen, Glenn W. Harrison, Morten I. Lau, E. Elisabet Rutström. Econometrica | Volume: 76 | Issue: 3 | Pps: 583-618 CrossRef |
15.  | Reciprocity in the workplace. Abigail Barr, Pieter Serneels. Experimental Economics CrossRef |
16.  | Do Women Supply More Public Goods than Men? Preliminary Experimental Evidence from Matrilineal and Patriarchal Societies. Steffen Andersen, , Erwin Bulte, , Uri Gneezy, , John A. List. American Economic Review | Volume: 98 | Issue: 2 | Pps: 376-381 Citation
| View PDF article (478 KB)
| PDF Plus (480 KB) |
17.  | Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse. Glenn W. Harrison, John A. List. The Economic Journal | Volume: 118 | Issue: 528 | Pps: 822-843 CrossRef |
18.  | Proximity and collaboration: measuring workplace configuration. M. Gordon Brown. Journal of Corporate Real Estate | Volume: 10 | Issue: 1 | Pps: 5-26 CrossRef |
19.  | A live experiment on approval voting. Jean-François Laslier, Karine Straeten. Experimental Economics | Volume: 11 | Issue: 1 | Pps: 97 CrossRef |
20.  | ON THE LINKAGE BETWEEN FINANCIAL RISK TOLERANCE AND RISK AVERSION. Robert Faff, Daniel Mulino, Daniel Chai. Journal of Financial Research | Volume: 31 | Issue: 1 | Pps: 1 CrossRef |
21.  | Experientia Docet: Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, Oscar Volij. Econometrica | Volume: 76 | Issue: 1 | Pps: 71 CrossRef |
26.  | Olfaction and the retail environment: examining the influence of ambient scent. Philippa Ward, Barry J. Davies, Dion Kooijman. Service Business | Volume: 1 | Issue: 4 | Pps: 295 CrossRef |
27.  | Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment. Stephan Meier. Journal of the European Economic Association | Volume: 5 | Issue: 6 | Pps: 1203 CrossRef |
28.  | Information Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals. JONATHAN E. ALEVY, MICHAEL S. HAIGH, JOHN A. LIST. The Journal of Finance | Volume: 62 | Issue: 1 | Pps: 151 CrossRef |
|