Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments?

• Published in: The American economic review Vol. 105; no. 5; pp. 462 - 466
• Main Authors: Al-Ubaydli, Omar, List, John A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Nashville American Economic Association 01.05.2015; American Economic Assoc
• Subjects: Citrus fruits; Cost allocation; Cost efficiency; Cost estimates; Costs; Decision making; Economic research; Economic theory; Environmental laboratories; Experimental methods; Experiments; EXTERNAL VALIDITY OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS; Field experiments; Field research; Field work; Game theory; Human subjects; Laboratories; Laboratory; Observational research; Research biases; Research facilities; Studies
• ISSN: 0002-8282; 1944-7981
• DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20151013

A commonly held view is that laboratory experiments provide researchers with more “control” than natural field experiments. This paper explores how natural field experiments can provide researchers with more control than laboratory experiments. While laboratory experiments provide researchers with a high degree of control in the environment which participants agree to be experimental subjects, when participants systematically opt out of laboratory experiments, the researcher's ability to manipulate certain variables is limited. In contrast, natural field experiments bypass the participation decision altogether due to their covertness, and they allow for a potentially more diverse participant pool within the market of interest.