Do Lab Experiments Misrepresent Social Preferences? The Case of Self-Selected Student Samples

257 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE (2015, background): “Similarly, Falk et al. (2013) examined whether students who donated to a charity were more likely to participate in laboratory experiments than students who did not, but also found no effect.”
Government Support and Charitable Donations: A Meta-Analysis of the Crowding-out Hypothesis (2016, background): “…but other studies showed that students and non-students do not differ in their level of giving in a dictator game with charities as recipients (Bekkers 2007) and in their change in giving as a reaction to changes in other participants’ donations in trust games (Falk, Meier, and Zehnder 2013).”
Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study (2019, background): “Unlike in most experimental settings, there is little concern about self-selection into our experiments from the subject population, due to our 90%+ response rates (Cleave et al., 2013; Falk et al., 2013; Harrison et al., 2009).”
A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games (2015, background): “Falk et al. (2013) find that nontudents make significantly more generous repayments in a trust game.”