We present a lab-field experiment designed to systematically assess the external validity of social preferences elicited in a variety of experimental games. We do this by comparing behavior in the different games with several behaviors elicited in the field and with self-reported behaviors exhibited in the past, using the same sample of participants. Our results show that the experimental social preference games do a poor job explaining both social behaviors in the field and social behaviors from the past. We also include a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous literature on the external validity of social preference games.Data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908 .This paper was accepted by John List, behavioral economics.

A growing stream of literature at the interface between economics and psychology is currently investigating ‘behavioral spillovers’ in (and across) different domains, including health, environmental, and pro-social behaviors. A variety of empirical methods have been used to measure behavioral spillovers to date, from qualitative self-reports to statistical/econometric analyses, from online and lab experiments to field experiments. The aim of this paper is to critically review the main experimental and non-experimental methods to measure behavioral spillovers to date, and to discuss their methodological strengths and weaknesses. A consensus mixed-method approach is then discussed which uses between-subjects randomization and behavioral observations together with qualitative self-reports in a longitudinal design in order to follow up subjects over time. In particular, participants to an experiment are randomly assigned to a treatment group where a behavioral intervention takes place to target behavior 1, or to a control group where behavior 1 takes place absent any behavioral intervention. A behavioral spillover is empirically identified as the effect of the behavioral intervention in the treatment group on a subsequent, not targeted, behavior 2, compared to the corresponding change in behavior 2 in the control group. Unexpected spillovers and additional insights (e.g., drivers, barriers, mechanisms) are elicited through analysis of qualitative data. In the spirit of the pre-analysis plan, a systematic checklist is finally proposed to guide researchers and policy-makers through the main stages and features of the study design in order to rigorously test and identify behavioral spillovers, and to favor transparency, replicability, and meta-analysis of studies.

We disentangle hyperbolic discounting from subjective time perception using experimental data from incentive-compatible tests to measure time preferences, and a set of experimental tasks to measure time perception. Two behavioral parameters are related to two factors affecting how we look ahead to future events. The first is some component of time preferences reflecting hyperbolic discounting. The second factor is that non-constant discounting may also be a reflection of subjective time perception: if people’s perception of time follows a near logarithmic process (as heat, sound, and light do) then estimates of individual discounting will be mis-measured and incorrectly suggest hyperbolic discounting even if discounting over subjective time is constant. We empirically estimate the two distinct behavioral parameters using data collected from 178 participants in a lab experiment. The results support the hypothesis that apparent non-constant discounting is largely a reflection of non-linear subjective time perception.

We study how patient-regarding altruism is formed by medical education. We elicit and structurally estimate altruistic preferences using experimental data from a large sample of medical students (N = 733) in Germany at different progress stages in their studies. The estimates reveal substantial heterogeneity in altruistic preferences of medical students. Patient-regarding altruism is highest for freshmen, significantly declines for students in the course of medical studies, and tends to increase again for last year students, who assist in clinical practice. Also, patient-regarding altruism is higher for females and positively associated to general altruism. Altruistic medical students have gained prior practical experience in healthcare, have lower income expectations, and are more likely to choose surgery and pediatrics as their preferred specialty.

We present results from a hypothetical framed field experiment assessing whether risk preferences significantly differ across the health and financial domains when they are elicited through the same multiple price list paired-lottery method. We consider a sample of 300 patients attending outpatient clinics in a university hospital in Athens during the Greek financial crisis. Risk preferences in finance were elicited using paired-lottery questions with hypothetical payments. The questions were adapted to the health domain by framing the lotteries as risky treatments in hypothetical health care scenarios. Using maximum likelihood methods, we estimated the degree of risk aversion, allowing for the estimates to be dependent on domain and individual characteristics. The subjects in our sample, who were exposed to both health and financial distress, tended to be less risk averse in the financial domain than in the health domain.