Author

  • Jorge N. Zumaeta

    • Florida International University, USA
    • United States

Abstract

This study embarked on the very challenging proposition of systematically organizing and classifying an assortment of experimental economics essays pertinent to seven experiments performed with both non-student and student populations. The experiments were the Dictator game, Stag Hunt – Coordination game, Risk Aversion Measurement (as measured by the players type of lottery choice), Trust game, Guessing game, Prudence Measurement, and the Guessing game. This meta-analysis reviewed 126 published and unpublished papers collected from several journals and papers provided by several authors via the Google Groups "Economic Science Association - Experimental Methods Discussion" group. Ultimately, only 39 studies were utilized due to methodological alignment. While some studies showed statistically significant differences between non-students and students as indicated by their respective 95% confidence intervals, the overall random-effects model of each of the seven games showed not to be statistically significant. This study contributes to the literature in three important ways. First, the study generates a comprehensive inventory and review of experiments comparing student to non-student populations for the last four decades; second, the study points out a possible limitation when combining several studies of the same game, despite following similar protocols, suggesting that compounded contextual complexities might diminish aggregate effects of the individuals’ behavioral responses to the financial incentives, and third, the study indicates that generalizations from one experimental economic study, may not render a solid base for extending statistical extrapolations applicable to the total population since the aggregate effects do not indicate substantial differences.

Keywords

References

  • Andreoni, J. H., William, T. & Vesterlund, L. (2008). Altruism in Experiments. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I. & Rutström, E. E. (2010). Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 73(2), 209-224.
  • Anderson, J., Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J., Götte, L., Maurer, K., Nosenzo, D., Potter, R., Rocha, K. & Rustichini, A. (2013). Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: evidence from one college student and two adult samples. Experimental Economics , 16(2), 170-189.
  • Bejarano, H. D. (2013). Participation, pricing, and perception in markets with externalities.
  • Bekkers, R. H. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game.
  • Belot, M., Duch, R. & Miller, L. (2015). A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 113, 26-33.
  • Belot, M., Duch, R. & Miller, L. (2010). Who should be called to the lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. University of Oxford, Nuffield College Discussion Papers (2010-001).
  • Beramendi, P., Duch, R. M. & Matsuo, A. (2016). Comparing Modes and Samples in Experiments: When Lab Subjects Meet Real People.
  • Berg, J., John, D., Kevin, M. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History . Games and Economic Behavior , 10(123), 122-142.
  • Cappelen, A. W., Nielsen, U. H., Tungodden, B., Tyran, J. R. & Wengström, E. (2014-2016). Fairness is intuitive. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 727-740.
  • Cappelen, A. W., Nygaard, K., Sorensen, E. & Tungodden, B. (2010). Efficiency, Equality and Reciprocity in Social Preferences: A Comparison of Students and a Representative Population.
  • Carpenter, J. P., Burks, S. & Verhoogen, E. (2005). Comparing students to workers: The effects of social framing on behavior in distribution games. In Field experiments in economics (pp. 261-289). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Carpenter, J., Connolly, C. & Myers, C. K. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 282-298.
  • Charness, G., Haruvy, E. & Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 88-103.
  • Cooper, D. J. (2005). Are Experienced Managers Experts at Overcoming Coordination Failure?
  • Cooper, D. J. (2006). Are Experienced Managers Experts at Overcoming Coordination Failure? The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(2), 1-52.
  • Druckman, J. N. & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior , 30(3), 297-321.
  • Druckman, J. N. & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, 1, 41-57.
  • Duch, R. M., Galvez, T. & Torres, F. (2017). Treatment Effects and Subject Pool Diversity in the Experimental Lab.
  • Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A Meta Study. Experimental Economics , 14(4), 583–610.
  • Exadaktylos, F., Espín, A. M. & Branas-Garza, P. (2013). Experimental subjects are not different. Scientific reports, 3(1), 1-6.
  • Falk, A., Meier, S. & Zehnder, C. (2013). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of selfselected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 839-852.
  • Ferré, M., Engel, S. & Gsottbauer, E. (2017). September. External validity of experiments in environmental economics. Framing and subject pool effects among students and professionals. In 19th Annual BIOECON Conference, 21-22 September 2017, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
  • Fu, T. T., Kong, W. H. & Yang, C. (2007). Monetary stakes and socioeconomic characteristics in ultimatum games: An experiment with nation-wide representative subjects. Unpublished Manuscript. Available at: http://www. fas. nus. edu. sg/ecs/events/set2007/programme. html.
  • Graziani, F., Gennai, S., Roldan, S., Discepoli, N., Buti, J., Madianos, P. & Herrera, D. (2014). Efficacy of periodontal plastic procedures in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions . Journal of Clinical Periodontology , 41, 63-S76.
  • Grossman, P. & Eckel, C. (2009). Loving the Longshot: Risk-Taking with Skewed Gambles.
  • Güth, W., Schmidt, C. & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab–a newspaper experiment of a three‐person ultimatum game. The Economic Journal , 117(518), 449-469.
  • Haigh, M. S. & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. The Journal of Finance , 60(1), 523-534.
  • Hedges, L. V. & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statistical methods in the meta-analysis of research on gender differences. In J. S. Hyde, & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender: Progress through Metaanalysis Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Hoffman, M. & Morgan, J. (2011). Who’s naughty? Who’s nice? Social preferences in online industries. University of California, Berkeley.
  • Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F. & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? Psychological methods, 11(2), 193.
  • Laban P., J. (2017). Culture, Conformity, and Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Analysis. Available at SSRN 3129799.
  • Li, S., Jiang, H., Yang, H., Chen, W., Peng, J., Sun, M., Zeng, J. (2015). The Dilemma of Heterogeneity Tests in Meta-Analysis: A Challenge from a Simulation Study. PLOS ONE , 10(5), e0127538.
  • Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L. & Loheac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 70(3), 470-484.
  • Mersinas, K., Hartig, B., Martin, K. M. & Seltzer, A. (2016). Are information security professionals expected value maximizers? An experiment and survey-based test. Journal of Cybersecurity, 2(1), 57-70.
  • Montmarquette, C., Rullière, J. L., Villeval, M. C. & Zeiliger, R. (2004). Redesigning teams and incentives in a merger: An experiment with managers and students. Management Science , 50(10), 1379-1389. MedCalc Statistical Software version 18.9. (2018). (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium; http://www.medcalc.org.
  • Naef, M. & Schupp, J. (2009). Measuring trust: Experiments and surveys in contrast and combination.
  • Romero, P. P. & Oleas, S. (2015). Bargaining and Ethnicity: A field experiment with students and villagers.
  • Pilkenton, N. (2015). Racial Differences in Bargaining Behavior: An Ultimatum Game Analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 367-388.
  • Zumaeta, N. J. (2020). Economic Attitudes and Financial Decisions among Welfare Recipients: Rationality and Risk Aversion, (Pending Publication).
  • Zumaeta, N. J. (2021). Specific Preference Parameters among Welfare Recipients, (Under Publication).

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Zumaeta, J. N. (2021). Meta-Analysis of Seven Standard Experimental Paradigms Comparing Student to Non-student Populations. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 13(2(J), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v13i2(J).3179

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Jorge N. Zumaeta (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 13 No. 2(J) (2021) Pandemic Response, Transparency & Customer Experience View issue contents

Published

2021-05-26

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission