Cited by 12Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesOptimal Experimental Design Methods

The Experimentalist Looks Within: Toward an Understanding of Within-Subject Experimental Designs

Open access
List, John·2025·Review of Behavioral Economics

Abstract

The traditional approach in experimental economics is to use a between-subject design: the analyst places each unit in treatment or control simultaneously and recovers treatment effects via differencing conditional expectations. Within-subject designs represent a significant departure from this method, as the same unit is observed in both treatment and control conditions sequentially. While many might consider the choice straightforward (always opt for a between-subject design), given the distinct benefits of within-subject designs, I argue that researchers should meticulously weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each design type. In doing so, I propose a categorization for within-subject designs based on the plausibility of recovering an internally valid estimate. In one instance, which I denote as stealth designs, the analyst should unequivocally choose a within-subject design rather than a between-subject design. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w33456

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One limitation of contingent valuation (CV) studies is that stated willingness to pay (WTP) may overstate true WTP, as some respondents may feel social pressure to indicate support for policies, even if they would not do so in an actual decision-making context.

    “One limitation of contingent valuation (CV) studies is that stated willingness to pay (WTP) may overstate true WTP, as some respondents may feel social pressure to indicate support for policies, even if they would not do so in an actual decision-making context.(Diamond and Hausman, 1994;List, 2025;Bursztyn et al., 2025).”

    From What is the Best Response? Examining the Impact of Police and Their Alternatives (2025) · cites this paper as List, 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Bellemare, Charles, Luc Bissonnette, and Sabine Kröger. 2014. "Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments." SSRN Electronic Journal, January. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2529895. · DOI
  2. ---2016. "Simulating Power of Economic Experiments: The powerBBK Package." Journal of the Economic Science Association 2 (2): 157-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-016- 0028-4. · DOI
  3. Biesanz, Jeremy C., Stephen G. West, and Oi-Man Kwok. 2003. "Personality Over Time: Methodological Approaches to the Study of Short-Term and Long-Term Development and Change." Journal of Personality 71 (6): 905-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 6494.7106002. · DOI
  4. Charness, Gary, Uri Gneezy, and Michael A. Kuhn. 2012. "Experimental Methods: Between- Subject and within-Subject Design." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81 (1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Frederick, S.F. and Fischhoff, B., 1998. Scope (in) sensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk Decision and Policy, 3(2), pp.109-123.
  6. Gneezy, Uri. 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences." American Economic Review 95 (1): 384-94. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828662. · DOI
  7. Greenwald, A.G., 1976. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?. Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), p.314.
  8. Grice, G. Robert. 1966. "Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation." Psychological Bulletin, 66 (1966), pp. 488-498
  9. Hsee, C.K., 1996. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3), pp.247-257.
  10. Isaac, R.M. and Walker, J.M., 1988a. Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contributions mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), pp.179-199.
  11. ---1988b. Communication and free-riding behavior: The voluntary contribution mechanism. Economic inquiry, 26(4), pp.585-608.
  12. Levitt, Steven D., and John A. List. 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (2): 153-74. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.153. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Levitt, Steven D., and John A. List. 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (2): 153-74. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.153. · DOI · Paper page
  14. ---2009. "Field Experiments in Economics: The Past, the Present, and the Future." European Economic Review 53 (1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.12.001. · DOI
  15. List, John A. 2004. "The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field*." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 49-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839524. · DOI
  16. ---2002. Preference reversals of a different kind: The "more is less" phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92(5), pp.1636-1643.
  17. ---2024. Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling. Nature, 626(7999), pp.491-499.
  18. ---2025. Experimental Economics: Theory and Practice. The University of Chicago Press.
  19. Neyman, J. 1923 trans. 1990. "On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9." Statistical Science 5 (4): 465-472. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2245382.
  20. Poulton, E.C., 1973. Unwanted range effects from using within-subject experimental designs. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), p.113.
  21. Rodemeier, Matthias. 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Mitigation: Field Evidence from the Market for Carbon Offsets." SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4360822.
  22. Rosenthal, R., 1976. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. (2nd ed.), Wiley, New York
  23. Rubin, Donald B. 1974. "Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies." Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (5): 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350. · DOI · Paper page
  24. ---. 1975. "Bayesian Inference for Causality: The Importance of Randomization." The Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, 233- 239.
  25. ---. 1978. "Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization." The Annals of Statistics 6 (1): 34-58. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344064. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
List, J.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
List, John
Venue
Review of Behavioral Economics
Published
2025-02
Pages
1-21
ISSN
2326-6198 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407312719
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9
FWCI
8.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Behavioral Economics (publishedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
within-subjects design, between-subjects design, experimental design, treatment effects, internal validity, stealth design, design decisions

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