Importing social preferences across contexts and the pitfall of over-generalization across theories

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Pisor ◽  
Daniel M. T. Fessler
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Group Selection ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Strong Reciprocity ◽  
The Real

AbstractClaims regarding negative strong reciprocity do indeed rest on experiments lacking established external validity, often without even a small “menu of options.” Guala's review should prompt strong reciprocity proponents to extend the real-world validity of their work, exploring the preferences participants bring to experiments. That said, Guala's approach fails to differentiate among group selection approaches and glosses over cross-cultural variability.

Is strong reciprocity really strong in the lab, let alone in the real world?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Şule Güney ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Strong Reciprocity ◽  
The Real ◽  
Target Article ◽  
The Impact

AbstractWe argue that standard experiments supporting the existence of “strong reciprocity” do not represent many cooperative situations outside the laboratory. More representative experiments that incorporate “earned” rather than “windfall” wealth also do not provide evidence for the impact of strong reciprocity on cooperation in contemporary real-life situations or in evolutionary history, supporting the main conclusions of the target article.

scholarly journals Promises and perils of experimentation: The mutual internal validity problem

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hause Lin ◽  
Kaitlyn M. Werner ◽  
Michael Inzlicht
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Theory Testing ◽  
The Real

Researchers run experiments to test theories, search for and document phenomena, develop theories, or advise policymakers. When testing theories, experiments must be internally valid but do not have to be externally valid. However, when experiments are used to search for and document phenomena, develop theories, or advise policymakers, external validity matters. Conflating these goals and failing to recognize their tensions with validity concerns can lead to problems with theorizing. Experimenters in psychology should be aware of the mutual-internal-validity problem, long recognized by experimental economists. When phenomena elicited by experiments are used to develop theories that, in turn, influence the design of theory-testing experiments, experiments and theories can become wedded to each other and lose touch with reality. They capture and explain phenomena within but not beyond the laboratory. We highlight how triangulation can address validity problems by helping experiments and theories make contact with ideas from other disciplines and the real world.

scholarly journals What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D Levitt ◽  
John A List
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Real World ◽  
Field Data ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
The Real ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Laboratory Results

A critical question facing experimental economists is whether behavior inside the laboratory is a good indicator of behavior outside the laboratory. To address that question, we build a model in which the choices that individuals make depend not just on financial implications, but also on the nature and extent of scrutiny by others, the particular context in which a decision is embedded, and the manner in which participants and tasks are selected. We present empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of these various factors. To the extent that lab and naturally occurring environments systematically differ on any of these dimensions, the results obtained inside and outside the lab need not correspond. Focusing on experiments designed to measure social preferences, we discuss the extent to which the existing laboratory results generalize to naturally-occurring markets. We summarize cases where the lab may understate the importance of social preferences as well as instances in which the lab might exaggerate their importance. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of interpreting laboratory and field data through the lens of theory.

Social preference experiments in animals: Strengthening the case for human preferences

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Social Preference ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
The Real ◽  
Testing Environments ◽  
By Products

AbstractGuala appears to take social preferences for granted in his discussion of reciprocity experiments. While he does not overtly claim that social preferences are only by-products that arise in testing environments, he does assert that whatever they are – and how they evolved – they have little value in the real world. Experiments on animals suggest that social preferences may be unique to humans, supporting the idea that they might play a prominent role in our world.

scholarly journals Behavioral economics of corruption and its implications

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
ROBERTA MURAMATSU ◽  
ANA MARIA A. F. BIANCHI
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Real

ABSTRACT This paper holds that the standard economic accounts of corruption based on expected costs and benefits are insufficient to understand and to tackle dishonesty in the real world. It embarks on a survey of the literature to discuss the major roles automatic judgments and decisions, as well as cognitive biases and social preferences might play in deviations from honest behavior. The paper further discusses the implications of behavioral economics to the debate over how to fight corruption and foster integrity.

scholarly journals Promises and Perils of Experimentation: The Mutual-Internal-Validity Problem

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162097477
Author(s):  
Hause Lin ◽  
Kaitlyn M. Werner ◽  
Michael Inzlicht
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Theory Testing ◽  
The Real

Researchers run experiments to test theories, search for and document phenomena, develop theories, or advise policymakers. When testing theories, experiments must be internally valid but do not have to be externally valid. However, when experiments are used to search for and document phenomena, develop theories, or advise policymakers, external validity matters. Conflating these goals and failing to recognize their tensions with validity concerns can lead to problems with theorizing. Psychological scientists should be aware of the mutual-internal-validity problem, long recognized by experimental economists. When phenomena elicited by experiments are used to develop theories that, in turn, influence the design of theory-testing experiments, experiments and theories can become wedded to each other and lose touch with reality. They capture and explain phenomena within but not beyond the laboratory. We highlight how triangulation can address validity problems by helping experiments and theories make contact with ideas from other disciplines and the real world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document