Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists?

By Ralph Hertwig, Andreas Ortmann. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2001

868 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/23383d3c9568d9b64334629befdbb53b5696dbc6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

The Method of Experimental Economics (2005, neutral): “Hertwig and Ortmann (2001) provide a well-documented comparison of the methodologies .”
A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory (2009, background): “Camerer and Hogarth (1999) and Hertwig and Ortmann (2001) provide excellent summaries of the numerous studies that have addressed the role of incentives in measurements of risk attitudes, often finding mixed results.”
Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement (2007, result): “This is consistent with Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) reflection effect, which says that preferences for prospects involving only losses are the mirror image of preferences for prospects involving only gains. Obviously, support for reflection is important for practical decision analysis because it i”
The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments (2010, background): “Hertwig and Ortmann (2001) compare practices of using incentives in psychology and economics.”
The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices Without Trade-Offs (2006, background): “The arguments for this assertion include that in most of the experiments, participants were not paid contingent on their performance (see Hertwig & Ortmann, 2001 ) or were not paid enough to motivate them to behave in accordance with expected utility and that outside the laboratory, market pressure”
The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics (2004, background): “Unlike psychologists, economic experimentalists have agreed to not deceive their subjects in any way (see Hertwig & Ortmann (2001)).”
Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory (2007, background): “600 Camerer & Hogarth (1999) and Hertwig & Ortmann (2001) surveyed the role of 601 real incentives.”
Intertemporal Tradeoffs for Gains and Losses: An Experimental Measurement of Discounted Utility (2010, positive): “In decision under uncertainty, real and hypothetical incentives do not seem to give qualitatively different results, although real incentives tend to reduce data variability (Camerer and Hogarth 1999, Hertwig and Ortmann 2001).”
Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging (2010, background): “Although experimental economists have long debated how incentives a¤ect choices (Camerer and Hogarth 1999, Hertwig and Ortmann 2001), to the best of our knowledge, the problem has not been explicitly addressed for PSR.10 Second, we consider an environment in which the agent has a nancial stake in…”
The null ritual : What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask (2004, background): “... Richter, 1990), proper choice of experimental environment (e.g., testing participants individually rather than in large classrooms), proper motivation (e.g., by performance-contingent payment rather than fl at sums), instructions that are unambiguous rather than vague, and the avoidance of unnec”