Economics in the Laboratory*

YNY: 重覆了,參見

Vernon L. Smith  (1994) “Economics in the Laboratory." Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 113-131.
Article Stable URL:



Stock market bubbles in the laboratory*

David P. Porter and Vernon L. Smith (1994) “Stock market bubbles in the laboratory." Applied mathematical Finance, Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 111-128. DOI:10.1080/13504869400000008; (國科會 A-  期刊, 100年)


Trading at prices above the fundamental value of an asset, i.e. a bubble, has been verified and replicated in laboratory asset markets for the past seven years. To date, only common group experience provides minimal conditions for common investor sentiment and trading at fundamental value. Rational expectations models do not predict the bubble and crash phenomena found in these experimental markets; such models yield only equilibrium predictions and do not articulate a dynamic process that converges to fundamental value with experience. The dynamic models proposed by Caginalp et al. do an excellent job of predicting price patterns after calibration with a previous experimental bubble, given the initial conditions for a new bubble and its controlled fundamental value. Several extensions of this basic laboratory asset market have recently been undertaken which allow for margin buying, short selling, futures contracting, limit price change rules and a host of other changes that could effect price formation in these assets markets. This paper reviews the results of 72 laboratory asset market experiments which include experimental treatments for dampening bubbles that are suggested by rational expectations theory or popular policy prescriptions.

Economics in the Laboratory

Vernon L. Smith (1994) “Economics in the Laboratory." Journal of Economic Perspectives ,Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter, 1994 , pp. 113-131. (link to JSTOR (AEAWeb:JEP (PDF))

==Summary by yinung==

Smith 在此文回顧了實證經濟學的重要貢獻 (其題為 “為何經濟學家要做實驗?" (why do economists conduct experiments?)), 他列舉以下 7 大理由,其實就是經濟實驗的主要功能:


1. Test a theory,or discriminate between theories

2. Explore the causes of a theory’sfailure.

3. Establish empirical regularities as a basis for new theory

4. Compare environments.

5. Compare institutions

6. Evaluate policy proposals.

7. The laboratory as a testing ground for institutional design.


Smith 並總結了經濟實驗多年來所發現之重要結論 (基於 制度 (institutions)、環境 (environments)、與行為 (behaviors) 之架構; 不過我認為還要加上「資訊」(information) 和 「預期之形成」(expectations formation) ):

1. Institutions Matter

2. Unconscious Optimization in Market Interactions

3. Information: Less Can Be Better

4. Common Information is Not Sufficient to Yield Common Expectations or “Knowledge"

5. Dominated Strategies Are for Playing, Not Eliminating

6. Efficiency and Underrevelation Are Compatible

7. The Endowment Effect

8. Fairness: Taste or Expectation?


水星運行之軌道未遵循牛頓運動定律之預測,並沒有讓科學家認為該運動定律是錯誤的,反而是斷定水星和太陽中間,必定有一個未知的行星 (甚至被命名為火神星 (Vulcan) [註 1] ) 干擾了水星應該運行之路徑… (Smith, 1994, p.127)

Smith 指出,任何對理論的驗證 (test),都避免不了必要的輔助假設 (auxiliary hypotheses),如此才能將觀察的結果解釋為對該理論的驗證結果。這些「輔助假設」常有很多不同的名詞,諸如: 啟始條件 (initial conditions) 、其它條件相同 (ceteris paribus clauses)、背景資訊 (background information)、… 等。

因此可以說,所有對理論的驗證,都隱含是一種聯合檢定 (joint tests) ; 亦即,對理論的驗證皆是條件式檢定,其皆建立在輔助假設 (auxiliary hypotheses) 成立的前提之下。

這就為何實驗文獻之發現,常被批評的原因, 如同「杜恩─奎因論題」(Duhem-Quine Thesis) 所述之「指任何理論儘管出現推翻它的證據,我們只要在我們的信念網絡中作一點改變,便可以繼續接受該理論」 (see 淺談「杜咸-奎因論旨」與非充分決定性論證)

Smith 在此文並對一些對實驗經濟研究法之批評,提出反駁。例如 Harrison (1992) 認為經濟實驗所得到的錯誤觀是因為受試者的實驗報酬之機會成本太低,所以才會偏離理論之預測。Smith and Walker (1993) 的 近 30 年文獻回顧說明了受試者所獲之「貨幣報酬的確可以改善受試者之表現 (在某些條件之下)」,但其它除了「受試者報酬」之條件也同樣重要,因為增加受試者報酬並沒有讓那些偏離理論所預測的觀察消失 (many anomalies do not disappear by escalating payoffs, p.127)

… 未完成, 待續…

===3. Information: Less Can Be Better===

這是個有趣的現象:競爭者知道對手的資訊愈多,反而不利市場機𠛻運作 (TBD: 指哪些?)
Providing subjects with complete information, far from improving market competition, tends to make it worse.
市場運作:CDA 實驗發現 private info. 收歛較快 (Smith, 1991, 6); 在寡佔市場 Fouraker and Siegel (1963) for Bertrand and Cournot oligopoly; 還有 Noussair and Porter (1992) and Brown-Kruse (1992, 未出版);
Roth (1987, 一本書) 也提到Nash bargaining game 的實驗:不知道對手的 prize 比較會符合 Nash 的預測 (YNY:嫉妒?)。但Schelling (1957) 和 Siegel and Fouraker (1960) 卻提出知道別人,反而會「諒解」(more forgiving) 的看法。 Camerer, Loewenstein and Weber (1989) 把它稱做 curse of knowledge
YNY:Smith 認為
1. 更多資訊讓參與者可找到更多自利的機會,或者懲罰別人的策略 (p.119, sec 1),
2. 也有人用 folk theorem 來解釋 (多回合交手後,傾向合作而非競爭)
3. 嫉妒別人
4. 諒解別人


  • Smith, Vernon L., and James M. Walker, “Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry,April 1993, 31, 245-61.
註 1: 水星偏離軌道 (水星的軌道偏離正圓程度很大,近日點距太陽僅四千六百萬千米,遠日點卻有7千萬千米,在軌道的近日點它以十分緩慢的速度按歲差圍繞太陽向前運行, see 背景資料:神秘的水星) 的真正原因,普遍相信可以由爱因斯坦所提出的广义相对论所解釋,即由于太阳质量较大,水星受它的引力作用也较大,在其附近的空间发生了较大的“弯曲” 所致。
  • Noussair, Charles and David Porter, “Allocating Priority with Auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, October 1992, 19, 169-195.
  • Roth, Alvin E., “Bargaining Phenomena and Bargaining Theory," in A. E. Roth (ed.)
    Laboratory Experimentation in Economics. Cambridge University Press, 1987
  • Schelling, T. C., “Bargaining, Communication and Limited War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1957, 1, 19-36.
  • Siegel, Sidney and Lawrence E. Fouraker, Bargaining and Group Decision Making:
    Experiments in Bilateral Monopoly. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
  • Camerer, Colin F., George Loewenstein and Martin Weber, “The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: Experimental Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, October 1989, 97, 1232-1254.