Abstract
This paper reports a field experiment involving manipulation of invitations to register in an experimental economics subject database. Two types of invitations were sent out: one emphasizing pecuniary and the other non-pecuniary benefits of participation. The former resulted in higher response rate and the strength of this treatment effect was comparable in different groups defined by gender and academic major. In a follow-up test conducted about a year later it was found that individuals recruited by invitations emphasizing monetary benefits were less willing to make an effort to participate in a non-paid survey. The very same survey also showed that they were marginally less altruistic in general.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735.
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics, 3(2), 107–120.
Falk, A., & Heckman, J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535.
Frank, B., & Schulze, G. (2000). Does economics make citizens corrupt? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(1), 101–113.
Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne, Working Paper Series in Economics, p. 10.
Harrison, G., Lau, M., & Rutström, E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(3), 498–507.
Innocenti, A., & Pazienza, M. (2006). Altruism and gender in the trust game. Labsi Working Paper, 5.
Jackson, J., Procidano, M., & Cohen, C. (1989). Subject pool sign-up procedures: A threat to external validity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 17(1), 29–42.
List, J. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37.
MacDonald, A. (1972). Characteristics of volunteer subjects under three recruiting methods: Pay, extra credit, and love of science. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 222–234.
Read, D. (2005). Monetary incentives, what are they good for? Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 265–276.
Rushton, J., Chrisjohn, R., & Fekken, G. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293–302.
Senn, C., & Desmarais, S. (2001). Are our recruitment practices for sex studies working across gender? The effect of topic and gender of recruiter on participation rates of university men and women. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(2), 111–117.
Sharp, E., Pelletier, L., & Lévesque, C. (2006). The double-edged sword of rewards for participation in psychology experiments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38(3), 269–277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from the editor, Jordi Brandts, as well as two anonymous referees. I am also indebted to the administrative staff of the University of Warsaw who made this research possible.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Krawczyk, M. What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment. Exp Econ 14, 482–489 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9277-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9277-5