Laboratory experimentation in economics

Roth, Alvin E. “Laboratory experimentation in economics." Economics & Philosophy 2.2 (1986): 245-273. [PDF]

==original abstract==

TBD

 

 

==References==

  • AlgerDan1984. “Equilibria in the Laboratory: Experiments with Oligopoly Markets where Goods are Made-to-Order.” Working paper no. 121, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission.Google Scholar
  • BergJoyce E.DaleyLane A.DickhautJohn W., and O’BrienJohn R.. Forthcoming. “Controlling Preferences for Lotteries on Units of Experimental Exchange.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
  • BewleyTruman. Forthcoming. Advances in Economic Theory, Fifth World Congress. New YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenRubinsteinAriel, and WollinskyAsher1985. “The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling.” Theoretical Economics Discussion Paper Series, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenShakedAvner, and SuttonJohn1985. “Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study.” American Economic Review 75:1178–80.Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenShakedAvner, and SuttonJohn1986. “An Outside Option Experiment.” Mimeo, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  • ChatterjeeKalyan1985. “Disagreement in Bargaining: Models with Incomplete Information.” In Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, edited by RothA. E.CambridgeCambridge University Press, pp. 926.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • EdgeworthF. Y. 1881Mathematical PsychicsLondonKegan Paul.Google Scholar
  • FerberRobert, and HirschWerner Z.1982Social Experimentation and Economic Policy (Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature). CambridgeCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • FourakerLawrence E., and SiegelSidney1963Bargaining BehaviorNew YorkMcGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  • GretherDavid M., and PlottCharles R.1984. “The Effects of Market Practices in Oligopolistic Markets: An Experimental Examination of the Ethyl Case.” Economic Inquiry 22:479507.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • HausmannJerry A., and WiseDavid A. (editors). 1985Social Experimentation. National Bureau of Economic Research: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A.LanganLoren, and VillamilAnne P.1984. “Market Power in Oral Double Auctions: Convergence to Competitive Equilibrium Prices Reconsidered.” Working paper.Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A., and ScheffmanDavid T.1985. “The Effects of Advance Notice and Best-Price Policies: Theory, with Applications to Ethyl.” Working paper (10).Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A., and VillamilAnne P.1984. “The Effect of Market Power on the Direction of Convergence in Oral Double Auctions.” Working paper (12), University of Virginia, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  • HongJames T., and PlottCharles R.1982. “Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: An Experimental Approach.” Bell Journal of Economics 13:119.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KagelJohn H. Forthcoming. “Economics According to the Rats (and Pigeons Too): What Have We Learned, and What Can We Hope to Learn.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • KagelJohn H.BattalioRaymond C., and GreenLeonard1981. “Income-Leisure Tradeoffs of Animal Workers.” American Economic Review 71:621–32.Google Scholar
  • KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist 39:341–50.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KalaiEhud, and SmorodinskyMeir1975. “Other Solutions to Nash’s Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 43:513–18.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KetchamJ.SmithV. L., and WilliamsA.1984. “A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions.” Review of Economic Studies 51:595614.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KihlstromR.RothA. E., and SchmeidlerD.1981. “Risk Aversion and Solutions to Nash’s Bargaining Problems.” In Game Theory and Mathematical Economics, edited by MoeschlinO. and PallaschkeD.AmsterdamNorth-Holland, pp. 6571.Google Scholar
  • KnezMark, and SmithVernon L.. Forthcoming. “Hypothetical Evaluations and Preference Reversals in the Context of Asset Trading.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.CambridgeCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • MachinaMark J. 1983. “The Economic Theory of Individual Behavior Toward Risk: Theory, Evidence, and New Directions.” Technical Report #433, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  • MurnighanJ. KeithRothAlvin E., and SchoumakerFrançoise1985. “Risk Aversion in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” Working paper.Google Scholar
  • NashJohn1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 28:155–62.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • PerlesM. A., and MaschlerM.1981. “The Super-Additive Solution for the Nash Bargaining Game.” International Journal of Game Theory 10:163–93.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. 1982. “Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 20:14851527.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. Forthcoming. “Dimensions of Parallelism: Some Policy Applications of Experimental Methods.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. 1985. “Laboratory Experiments in Economics: The Implications of Posted Price Institutions.” Mimeo, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R., and SmithVernon L.1978. “An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions.” Review of Economic Studies 45:133–53.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1979Axiomatic Models of BargainingBerlinSpringer Verlag.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1983. “Toward a Theory of Bargaining: An Experimental Study in Economics.” Science 220687–91.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., (editor). 1985a. Game-Theoretic Models of BargainingNew YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1985b. “A Note on Risk Aversion in a Perfect Equilibrium Model of Bargaining.” Econometrica 53:207–11.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. Forthcoming. “Bargaining Phenomena and Bargaining Theory.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., (editor). Forthcoming. Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of ViewNew YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and MaloufMichael W. K.1979. “Game-Theoretic Models and the Role of Information in Bargaining.” Psychological Review 86:574–94.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E.MaloufMichale W. K., and MurnighanJ. Keith1981. “Sociological Versus Strategic Factors in Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2:153–77.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and MurnighanJ. Keith1982. “The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” Econometrica 50:1123–42.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and RothblumUriel G.1982. “Risk Aversion and Nash’s Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes.” Econometrica 50:639–47.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and SchoumakerFrançoise1983. “Expectations and Reputations in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review 73:362–72.Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econometrica 50:97109.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel1985. “Choice of Conjectures in a Bargaining Game with Incomplete Information.” In Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, edited by RothA. E., pp. 99114New YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel. Forthcoming. “A Sequential Theory of Bargaining.” In Advances in Economic Theory, edited by BewleyTrumanNew YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard1972. “Equal Share Analysis of Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Contributions to Experimental Economics III, edited by SauermannH.TübingenJ. C. B. Mahr, pp. 130–65.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard1982. “Equal Division Payoff Bounds for 3-Person Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, edited by TietzR.BerlinSpringer Verlag, pp. 265–75.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard. Forthcoming. “Equity and Coalition Bargaining in Experimental 3-Person Games.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard, and KrischkerWilhelm1982. “Comparison of Two Theories for Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, edited by TietzR.BerlinSpringer Verlag, pp. 259–64.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1964. “Effect of Market Organization on Competitive Equilibrium.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 78:181201.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1976. “Bidding and Auctioning Institutions: Experimental Results.” In Bidding and Auctioning for Procurement and Allocation, edited by AmihudY.New YorkNew York University Press, pp. 4364.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1981. “An Empirical Study of Decentralized Institutions of Monopoly Restraint.” In Essays in Contemporary Fields of Economics, edited by HorwichG. and QuirkJ.LafayetteW.Purdue University83106.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1982a. “Markets as Economizers of Information: Experimental Examination of the ‘Hayek Hypothesis.’” Economic Inquiry 20:165–79.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1982b. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72:923–55.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L., and WilliamsArlington W.1981. “The Boundaries of Competitive Price Theory: Convergence, Expectations and Transaction Cost.” Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Meetings, New Orleans, 03 13–15.Google Scholar
  • ThalerRichard. Forthcoming. “The Psychology of Choice and the Assumptions of Economics.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel1981. ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211:453–58.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • WilsonRobert B. Forthcoming. “Game Theoretic Analysis of Trading Processes.” In Advances in Economic Theory, edited by BewleyTruman. Fifth World Congress. New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar

The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics

Roth, Alvin E. “The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics." Econometrica 70.4 (2002): 1341-1378. [PDF] [**]

==abstract==

Economists have lately been called upon not only to analyze markets, but to design them. Market design involves a responsibility for detail, a need to deal with all of a market’s complications, not just its principle features. Designers therefore cannot work only with the simple conceptual models used for theoretical insights into the general working of markets. Instead, market design calls for an engineering approach. Drawing primarily on the design of the entry level labor market for American doctors (the National Resident Matching Program), and of the auctions of radio spectrum conducted by the Federal Communications Commission, this paper makes the case that experimental and computational economics are natural complements to game theory in the work of design. The paper also argues that some of the challenges facing both markets involve dealing with related kinds of complementarities, and that this suggests an agenda for future theoretical research.

KEYWORDS:Market design, game theory, experimental economics, computational economics

2010 JEBO Special Issue: Experimental Methods in Entrepreneurship Research

[link to elsevier]

  1. On experiments in entrepreneurship research

    Pages 1-2
    Purchase PDF
  2. Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: Genetic and environmental influences

    Pages 3-14
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  3. Pages 15-29
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  4. Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs’ and non-entrepreneurs’ disinvestment choices

    Pages 30-44
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  5. The impact of risk attitudes on entrepreneurial survival

    Pages 45-63
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  6. The good, the bad, and the talented: Entrepreneurial talent and selfish behavior

    Pages 64-81
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  7. Risk attitudes, wealth and sources of entrepreneurial start-up capital

    Pages 82-89
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  8. The effects of entrepreneurship education

    Pages 90-112
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  9. On the evolution of professional consulting

    Pages 113-126
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview
  10. Enhancing the internal validity of entrepreneurship experiments by assessing treatment effects at multiple levels across multiple trials

    Pages 127-140
    Purchase PDF

    Article preview

Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment

Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review95(3), 897-901.   [PDF] ucsd.edu ; [PDF] ucsd.edu;[本站PDF]

==noted by yinung==

這是 Harrison et al. (2005) 對 Holt and Laury (Risk aversion and incentive effects ,2002,  AER) 這一篇的挑戰:

===重點:===

Harrison et al. (2005, AER) 對 Holt and Laury (2002, AER) 質疑有「order effects」(An order effect occurs when prior experience with one task affects behavior in a subsequent task., p.897) 並重新做實驗,比較1x10x 和只有 10x 的結果,如下圖。
(註:Hypothetical 指只有實驗中的假設報酬數字放大,並沒有實際報酬的放大)。
不過,Harrison et al. (2005) 在畫下圖的時候,不是用實際的數字,而是用 ordered probit 預測結果畫的

 

 

Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects

Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. “Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects." American Economic Review 95.3 (2005): 902-912.  source: PDF [本站]

這篇是 Holt 回應 Harrison et al. (2004) 對先前發表(Holt and Laury, 2002, AER),有無 order effects 的質礙

==主要結論是:==

payment 愈高,risk averse 愈明顯,但沒有 order effects。

==notes by yinung==

  • 用這來判斷 risk averse: The average number of safe choices(查細設定?)
  • 此新實驗改用 a single lotterychoice menu?
  • 1st treatment(odered choices): low-pay -> high-payment (20X)
  • 另外4個 (unordered) TM
    L(1x)
    L/H0
    H(20x)
    H/H0
  • 用兩個無母數檢定

螢幕快照_2019-07-19_17-17-03

==Game online==

http://veconlab.econ.virginia.edu/lc/lc.php

==references==

  • Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95(3), 897-901.
  • HOLT, Charles A.; LAURY, Susan K. Risk aversion and incentive effects. American economic review, 2002, 92.5: 1644-1655.

Effects of facial trustworthiness and gender on decision making in the Ultimatum Game

Wu, Yujia; Gao, Li; Wan, Yan; Wang, Fang; Xu, Sihua; Yang, Zijing; Rao, Hengyi; Pan, Yu (2018). Effects of facial trustworthiness and gender on decision making in the Ultimatum Game. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(3), 499-516. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6966)

==abstract==

As little is yet known about the influence of facial trustworthiness and gender on fairness consideration in decision making, we examined whether a proposer’s facial trustworthiness and gender would influence a responder’s willingness to accept the proposer’s monetary offer. Participants in our study were 79 Chinese undergraduate students (responders) who played the Ultimatum Game with 4 proposers (2 male and 2 female) with different facial trustworthiness. As predicted, responders were more willing to accept offers from trustworthy-looking proposers. We found that facial trustworthiness was a more salient cue when proposers were men than when they were women and, furthermore, that the students’ emotional response to faces was correlated with their fairness consideration. Considering the implicit influence of facial trustworthiness and gender on decision making, potentially there are broader implications of our findings for certain business activities, such as negotiation and bargaining.

New directions for modelling strategic behavior: Game-theoretic models of communication, coordination, and cooperation in economic relationships

Crawford, Vincent P. “New directions for modelling strategic behavior: Game-theoretic models of communication, coordination, and cooperation in economic relationships." Journal of Economic Perspectives 30.4 (2016): 131-50.

URL:http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.4.131

==original Abstract==

In this paper, I discuss the state of progress in applications of game theory in economics and try to identify possible future developments that are likely to yield further progress. To keep the topic manageable, I focus on a canonical economic problem that is inherently game-theoretic, that of fostering efficient coordination and cooperation in relationships, with particular attention to the role of communication. I begin with an overview of noncooperative game theory’s principal model of behavior, Nash equilibrium. I next discuss the alternative “thinking" and “learning" rationales for how real-world actors might reach equilibrium decisions. I then review how Nash equilibrium has been used to model coordination, communication, and cooperation in relationships, and discuss possible developments

GIMS, an open source market software

S. Palan, GIMS-Software for asset market experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finance 5, 1–14, (2015). Medline doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2015.02.001 (可免費閱讀)

==by YNY==

GIMS 是架在 z-Tree 上,專門用來跑財務資產市場 (又稱 double auction asset market) 的實驗平台軟體,採開放源碼 (open source) 授權。

此文亦介紹、比較了其它相關的財務市場實驗平台軟體,參見文中的 Table 1。

  • EconPort MarketLink(based on Java and experiments can be run over the internet)
  • Flex-E-Markets(not open source)
  • GIMS(based on z-Tree)
  • jMarkets (open-source software based on Java)
  • Rotman Interactive Trader (非免費)
  • SoPHIE Labs (非免費)

Continuous double auction market interface

Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics

C. F. Camerer, A. Dreber, E. Forsell, T.-H. Ho, J. Huber, M. Johannesson, M. Kirchler, J. Almenberg, A. Altmejd, T. Chan, E. Heikensten, F. Holzmeister, T. Imai, S. Isaksson, G. Nave, T. Pfeiffer, M. Razen, H. Wu. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 2016; DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf0918

==YNY==

終於有人系統性地檢視經濟實驗, 雖然只挑 AER 和 QJE 所發表的, 但經得起「重覆實驗」來驗證結果的研究, 才符合科學的精神…

微观经济与宏观经济实验原理.方法与案例

作者: 刘贞 / 施於人
出版社: 机械工业出版社
出版年: 2012-9
页数: 186
定价: 26.00元
ISBN: 9787111389781