Experimental Subjects Are Not Different

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2013 Feb 23

PMID 23429162

Citations 33

Authors

Filippos Exadaktylos

Antonio M Espin

Pablo Branas-Garza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Experiments using economic games are becoming a major source for the study of human social behavior. These experiments are usually conducted with university students who voluntarily choose to participate. Across the natural and social sciences, there is some concern about how this "particular" subject pool may systematically produce biased results. Focusing on social preferences, this study employs data from a survey-experiment conducted with a representative sample of a city's population (N = 765). We report behavioral data from five experimental decisions in three canonical games: dictator, ultimatum and trust games. The dataset includes students and non-students as well as volunteers and non-volunteers. We separately examine the effects of being a student and being a volunteer on behavior, which allows a ceteris paribus comparison between self-selected students (students*volunteers) and the representative population. Our results suggest that self-selected students are an appropriate subject pool for the study of social behavior.

Citing Articles

Natural soundscapes enhance mood recovery amid anthropogenic noise pollution.

Gilmour L, Bray I, Alford C, Lintott P PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0311487.

PMID: 39602385 PMC: 11602051. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311487.

Testing a policy intervention in the lab: differences between students and non-students in switching bank accounts.

Proestakis A, Marandola G, Lourenco J, van Bavel R J Behav Exp Econ. 2024; 111:None.

PMID: 39091380 PMC: 11195910. DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102220.

Culture and group-functional punishment behaviour.

Espin A, Branas-Garza P, Gamella J, Herrmann B, Martin J Evol Hum Sci. 2023; 4:e35.

PMID: 37588896 PMC: 10426100. DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2022.32.

Anti-social behaviour and economic decision-making: Panel experimental evidence in the wake of COVID-19.

Lohmann P, Gsottbauer E, You J, Kontoleon A J Econ Behav Organ. 2022; 206:136-171.

PMID: 36531911 PMC: 9744689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.12.007.

Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fang X, Freyer T, Ho C, Chen Z, Goette L Soc Sci Med. 2022; 308:115192.

PMID: 35870298 PMC: 9262678. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115192.

References

Suri S, Watts D . Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS One. 2011; 6(3):e16836. PMC: 3055889. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016836. View

Rilling J, Gutman D, Zeh T, Pagnoni G, Berns G, Kilts C . A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron. 2002; 35(2):395-405. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00755-9. View

Sanfey A . Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science. 2007; 318(5850):598-602. DOI: 10.1126/science.1142996. View

Van den Bergh B, Dewitte S . Digit ratio (2D:4D) moderates the impact of sexual cues on men's decisions in ultimatum games. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273(1597):2091-5. PMC: 1635480. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3550. View

Semmann D, Krambeck H, Milinski M . Volunteering leads to rock-paper-scissors dynamics in a public goods game. Nature. 2003; 425(6956):390-3. DOI: 10.1038/nature01986. View

Levitt S, List J . Economics. Homo economicus evolves. Science. 2008; 319(5865):909-10. DOI: 10.1126/science.1153640. View

Li J, McClure S, King-Casas B, Montague P . Policy adjustment in a dynamic economic game. PLoS One. 2006; 1:e103. PMC: 1762366. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000103. View

Wedekind C, Milinski M . Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science. 2000; 288(5467):850-2. DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5467.850. View

Roca C, Cuesta J, Sanchez A . Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics. Phys Life Rev. 2010; 6(4):208-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2009.08.001. View

10.

Crone E, Somsen R, Van Beek B, van der Molen M . Heart rate and skin conductance analysis of antecendents and consequences of decision making. Psychophysiology. 2004; 41(4):531-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00197.x. View

11.

Dreber A, Rand D, Fudenberg D, Nowak M . Winners don't punish. Nature. 2008; 452(7185):348-51. PMC: 2292414. DOI: 10.1038/nature06723. View

12.

Traulsen A, Semmann D, Sommerfeld R, Krambeck H, Milinski M . Human strategy updating in evolutionary games. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(7):2962-6. PMC: 2840356. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912515107. View

13.

Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayan A . The weirdest people in the world?. Behav Brain Sci. 2010; 33(2-3):61-83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. View

14.

Grujic J, Fosco C, Araujo L, Cuesta J, Sanchez A . Social experiments in the mesoscale: humans playing a spatial prisoner's dilemma. PLoS One. 2010; 5(11):e13749. PMC: 2980480. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013749. View

15.

Janssen M, Holahan R, Lee A, Ostrom E . Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science. 2010; 328(5978):613-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.1183532. View

16.

Elliott R, Friston K, Dolan R . Dissociable neural responses in human reward systems. J Neurosci. 2000; 20(16):6159-65. PMC: 6772605. View

17.

Rand D, Nowak M . The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games. Nat Commun. 2011; 2:434. PMC: 3279747. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1442. View

18.

Burnham T . High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proc Biol Sci. 2007; 274(1623):2327-30. PMC: 1950304. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0546. View

19.

Breiter H, Aharon I, Kahneman D, Dale A, Shizgal P . Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses. Neuron. 2001; 30(2):619-39. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00303-8. View

20.

van t Wout M, Kahn R, Sanfey A, Aleman A . Affective state and decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Exp Brain Res. 2006; 169(4):564-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0346-5. View