The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Field Experiments
Open accessAbstract
Experimental economists are leaving the reservation. They are recruiting subjects in the field rather than in the classroom, using field goods rather than induced valuations, and using field context rather than abstract terminology in instructions. We argue that there is something methodologically fundamental behind this trend. Field experiments differ from laboratory experiments in many ways. Although it is tempting to view field experiments as simply less controlled variants of laboratory experiments, we argue that to do so would be to seriously mischaracterize them. What passes for “control” in laboratory experiments might in fact be precisely the opposite if it is artificial to the subject or context of the task. We propose six factors that can be used to determine the field context of an experiment: the nature of the subject pool, the nature of the information that the subjects bring to the task, the nature of the commodity, the nature of the task or trading rules applied, the nature of the stakes, and the environment that subjects operate in.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses
Breiter, H. C., Aharon, I., Kahneman, D., Dale, A., & Shizgal, P. (2001) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00303-8 · Cited by 1,404
Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1996.0081 · Cited by 1,126
List, J. A., & Lucking‐Reiley, D. (2002) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/324392 · Cited by 535
Self-citationList, J. A. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.5.1498 · Cited by 451
Self-citation
Cited by
What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.153 · Cited by 2,668
Self-citationAngrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment
Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2 · Cited by 1,118
Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x · Cited by 984
Self-citationOn the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games
List, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/519249 · Cited by 918
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Literature
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2004-11-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1009-1055
- ISSN
- 0022-0515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4251446432
- Cited by
- 2,099
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 103.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Field Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/0022051043004577
- The paper
- Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.