Experimental Economics: Past and Future

Literature Cited

1. Agranov M, Tergiman C. 2014. Communication in multilateral bargaining. J. Public Econ. 118:75–85
   [Google Scholar]
2. Agranov M, Yariv L. 2018. Collusion through communication in auctions. Games Econ. Behav. 107:93–108
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anauati MV, Galiani S, Gálvez RH. 2020. Differences in citation patterns across journal tiers: the case of economics. Econ. Inq. 58:31217–32
   [Google Scholar]
4. Anderson LR, Holt CA. 1997. Information cascades in the laboratory. Am. Econ. Rev. 87:5847–62
   [Google Scholar]
5. Arechar AA, Kraft-Todd GT, Rand DG. 2017. Turking overtime: how participant characteristics and behavior vary over time and day on Amazon Mechanical Turk. J. Econ. Sci. Assoc. 3:11–11
   [Google Scholar]
6. Baker M. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nat. News 553:7604452–54
   [Google Scholar]
7. Baranski A, Morton R. 2021. The determinants of multilateral bargaining: a comprehensive analysis of Baron and Ferejohn majoritarian bargaining experiments. Exp. Econ. 2021: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-021-09734-7
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
8. Baron DP, Ferejohn JA. 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 83:41181–206
   [Google Scholar]
9. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, Nosek BA, Wagenmakers EJ et al. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:16–10
   [Google Scholar]
10. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Anal. 20:3351–68
    [Google Scholar]
11. Berinsky AJ, Margolis MF, Sances MW. 2014. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:3739–53
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bradfield AJ, Kagel JH. 2015. Legislative bargaining with teams. Games Econ. Behav. 93:117–27
    [Google Scholar]
13. Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho TH, Huber J et al. 2016. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351:62801433–36
    [Google Scholar]
14. Charness G, Fréchette GR, Kagel JH. 2004. How robust is laboratory gift exchange?. Exp. Econ. 7:2189–205
    [Google Scholar]
15. Chen Y, Plott CR. 1996. The Groves-Ledyard mechanism: an experimental study of institutional design. J. Public Econ. 59:3335–64
    [Google Scholar]
16. Christensen G, Miguel E 2018. Transparency, reproducibility, and the credibility of economics research. J. Econ. Lit. 56:3920–80
    [Google Scholar]
17. Coffman LC, Niederle M. 2015. Pre-analysis plans have limited upside, especially where replications are feasible. J. Econ. Perspect. 29:381–98
    [Google Scholar]
18. Cooper DJ, Dutcher EG. 2011. The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study. Exp. Econ. 14:4519–46
    [Google Scholar]
19. Dal Bó P, Fréchette GR. 2018. On the determinants of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 56:160–114
    [Google Scholar]
20. Dal Bó P, Fréchette GR, Kim J 2021. The determinants of efficient behavior in coordination games Work. Pap., Brown Univ. Providence, RI:
21. Dreber A, Johannesson M. 2019. Statistical significance and the replication crisis in the social sciences. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.461
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
22. Ellison G. 2002. The slowdown of the economics publishing process. J. Political Econ. 110:5947–93
    [Google Scholar]
23. Ellison G. 2013. How does the market use citation data? The Hirsch index in economics. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 5:363–90
    [Google Scholar]
24. Embrey M, Fréchette GR, Yuksel S. 2018. Cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. Q. J. Econ. 133:1509–51
    [Google Scholar]
25. Engel C. 2011. Dictator games: a meta study. Exp. Econ. 14:4583–610
    [Google Scholar]
26. Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A. 1993. Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Q. J. Econ. 108:2437–59
    [Google Scholar]
27. Franklin A, Allan F 1990. Experiment, Right or Wrong Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
28. Fréchette GR 2015. Laboratory experiments: professionals versus students. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology A Fréchette, A Schotter 360–90 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
29. Fréchette GR. 2016. Experimental economics across subject populations. The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Vol. 2 JH Kagel, AE Roth 435–80 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
30. Fréchette GR, Kagel JH, Lehrer SF. 2003. Bargaining in legislatures: an experimental investigation of open versus closed amendment rules. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 97:2221–32
    [Google Scholar]
31. Fréchette GR, Kagel JH, Morelli M. 2005a. Behavioral identification in coalitional bargaining: an experimental analysis of demand bargaining and alternating offers. Econometrica 73:61893–937
    [Google Scholar]
32. Fréchette GR, Kagel JH, Morelli M. 2005b. Nominal bargaining power, selection protocol, and discounting in legislative bargaining. J. Public Econ. 89:81497–517
    [Google Scholar]
33. Fréchette GR, Vespa E. 2017. The determinants of voting in multilateral bargaining games. J. Econ. Sci. Assoc. 3:126–43
    [Google Scholar]
34. Fudenberg D, Peysakhovich A. 2016. Recency, records, and recaps: learning and nonequilibrium behavior in a simple decision problem. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation971–86 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
35. Gillen B, Snowberg E, Yariv L. 2019. Experimenting with measurement error: techniques with applications to the Caltech cohort study. J. Political Econ. 127:41826–63
    [Google Scholar]
36. Goeree JK, Yariv L. 2011. An experimental study of collective deliberation. Econometrica 79:3893–921
    [Google Scholar]
37. Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A. 2013. Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26:3213–24
    [Google Scholar]
38. Guarnaschelli S, McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR. 2000. An experimental study of jury decision rules. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 94:2407–23
    [Google Scholar]
39. Gupta N, Rigotti L, Wilson AJ. 2021. The experimenters' dilemma: inferential preferences over populations. arXiv:2107.05064 [econ.GN]
40. Hauser D, Paolacci G, Chandler J 2019. Common concerns with MTurk as a participant pool: evidence and solutions. Handbook of Research Methods in Consumer Psychology FR Kardes, PM Herr, N Schwarz 319–37 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
41. Healy PJ. 2006. Learning dynamics for mechanism design: an experimental comparison of public goods mechanisms. J. Econ. Theory 129:1114–49
    [Google Scholar]
42. Heckman JJ, Moktan S. 2020. Publishing and promotion in economics: the tyranny of the top five. J. Econ. Lit. 58:2419–70
    [Google Scholar]
43. Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ. 2011. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Exp. Econ. 14:3399–425
    [Google Scholar]
44. Kagel JH, Levin D. 1993. Independent private value auctions: bidder behaviour in first-, second- and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. Econ. J. 103:419868–79
    [Google Scholar]
45. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. 1995. The Handbook of Experimental Economics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
46. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. 2020. The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Vol. 2 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
47. Kagel JH, Sung H, Winter E 2010. Veto power in committees: an experimental study. Exp. Econ. 13:2167–88
    [Google Scholar]
48. Kübler D, Weizsäcker G. 2004. Limited depth of reasoning and failure of cascade formation in the laboratory. Rev. Econ. Stud. 71:2425–41
    [Google Scholar]
49. Lane T. 2016. Discrimination in the laboratory: a meta-analysis of economics experiments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 90:375–402
    [Google Scholar]
50. Lehmann S, Jackson AD, Lautrup BE. 2006. Measures for measures. Nature 444:71221003–4
    [Google Scholar]
51. Mengel F. 2018. Risk and temptation: a meta-study on prisoner's dilemma games. Econ. J. 128:6163182–209
    [Google Scholar]
52. Nikiforakis N, Slonim R. 2019. Editors' preface: trends in experimental economics (1975–2018). J. Econ. Sci. Assoc. 5:143–48
    [Google Scholar]
53. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. 2010. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5:5411–19
    [Google Scholar]
54. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. 2008. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 Amsterdam: Elsevier
55. Reuben E, Li SX, Suetens S, Svorenčík A, Turocy T, Kotsidis V. 2021. Trends in the publication of experimental economics articles. Work. Pap., New York Univ. New York:
56. Samuelson W, Bazerman MH. 1984. The winner's curse in bilateral negotiations Work. Pap. 1513-84 Sloan Sch. Manag., Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge:
57. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22:111359–66
    [Google Scholar]
58. Smith VL. 1982. Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. Am. Econ. Rev. 72:5923–55
    [Google Scholar]
59. Smith VL. 1994. Economics in the laboratory. J. Econ. Perspect. 8:1113–31
    [Google Scholar]
60. Snowberg E, Yariv L. 2021. Testing the waters: behavior across participant pools. Am. Econ. Rev. 111:2687–719
    [Google Scholar]
61. Zelmer J. 2003. Linear public goods experiments: a meta-analysis. Exp. Econ. 6:3299–310
    [Google Scholar]