Abstracts
Résumé
En dépit de son utilisation et de sa légitimité croissantes, l’expérimentation de laboratoire en économie fait parfois l’objet de critiques qui peuvent aller jusqu’à la remise en cause de la pertinence de l’outil. Sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, nous revenons sur ceux de ces arguments qui revêtent selon nous un caractère discutable (parce qu’ils nous semblent selon les cas témoigner soit d’une tentation stratégique face à des résultats expérimentaux considérés comme gênants, soit d’une vision erronée des finalités et potentialités de la démarche, soit encore d’une lecture partielle de la réalité économique elle-même) afin de montrer que leur validité est au mieux locale et partielle. Nous en profitons pour rappeler les finalités de la méthode expérimentale, circonscrire son domaine d’application (c.-à-d. ses potentialités et limites) et indiquer quelques précautions d’utilisation.
Abstract
Despite its increasing use and legitimacy, experimental methodology in economics has been subject to some criticism, an extreme version of which concludes to its irrelevance to its object. With no claim to exhaustiveness, the paper presents and discusses some arguments that we consider to be questionable – because they are suspected to hide either a strategic temptation when facing unpleasant experimental results or a fallacious view of experimental goals and potentialities, or even an inadequate approach of economic reality itself – and shows that they are at best locally or partially valid. This allows us to remind the reader of the purposes of the experimental method, of its potentialities and limits as well as of some basic precautions to adopt.
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Akerlof, G. A. et J. L. Yelle (1985), « Can Small Deviations from Rationality Make Significant Differences to Economic Equilibria? », American Economic Review, 75(4) :708-720.
- Baron, J. (2001), « Purposes and Methods » (Open Peer Commentary to R. Hertwig and A. Ortmann), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3) : 403.
- Barron, G. et I. Erev (2000), On the Relationship between Decisions in One-Shot and Repeated Tasks: Experimental Results and the Possibility of General Models, Technion, Haifa, Israel.
- Battalio, R., J. Kagel et K. Jiranyakul (1990), « Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: some Initial Results », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3 : 25-50.
- Berg, J. E., J. W. Dickhaut et J. R. O’Brie (1985), « Preference Reversal and Arbitrage », Research in Experimental Economics, 3 : 31-72.
- Binmore, K. G. (1994), Playing Fair, MIT Press.
- Binmore, K. G. (1999), « Why Experiments in Economics? », Economic Journal, 109 : 16-24.
- Birnbaum, M. H. et S. E. Sutton (1992), « Scale Convergence and Utility Measurement », Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52 : 183-215.
- Bohm, P. (1994), « Time Preference and Preference Reversal among Experienced Subjects: The Effects of Real Payments », Economic Journal, 104 : 1 370-1 378.
- Bone, J. D., J. D. Hey et J. R. Suckling (1999), « Are Groups more Consistent than Individuals? », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8 : 63-81.
- Bonner, S. E. et G. B. Sprinkle (2002), « The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Effort and Task Performance: Theories, Evidence, and a Framework for Research », Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27 : 303-345.
- Börgers, T. (1996), « On the Relevance of Evolution and Learning to Economic Theory », Economic Journal, 106 : 1 274- 1385.
- Börgers, T. et R. Sarin (1997), « Learning through Reinforcement and Replicator Dynamics », Journal of Economic Theory, 77 : 1-14.
- Bostic, R., R. J. Herrnstein et R. D. Luce (1990), « The Effect on the Preference Reversal Phenomenon of Using Choice Indifferences », Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13 : 193-212.
- Brookshire, D. S. et D. L. Coursey (1987), « Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures », American Economic Review, 77 : 554-566.
- Burke, M. S. (1996), « An Experimental note on the Allais paradox and Monetary Incentives », Empirical Economics, 6 : 17-32.
- Camerer, C. F. (1987), « Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence », American Economic Review, 77(5) : 981-997.
- Camerer, C. F. (1990), « Do Markets Correct Biases in Probability Judgment? Evidence from Market Experiments », dans L. Green et J. Kagel (éds), Advances in Behavioral Economics, Ablex.
- Camerer, C. F. (1992), « Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory », dans W. Edwards (éd.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
- Camerer, C. F. et R. M. Hogarth (1999), « The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1) : 7-42.
- Chu, Y. P. et R. L. Chu (1990), « The Subsidence of Preference Reversals in Simplified and Market-Like Experimental Settings: A Note », American Economic Review, 80 : 902-911.
- Cooper, D. et J. Kagel (2003), « The Impact of Meaningful Context on Strategic Play in Signaling Games », Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50 : 311-337.
- Cox, J. C. et D. M. Grether (1996), « The Preference Reversal Phenomenon: Response Mode, Markets, and Incentives », Economic Theory, 7 : 381-405.
- Cross, J. (1980), « Some Comments on the Papers by Kagel and Battalio and by Smith », dans J. Kmenta et J. Ramsey (éds) Evaluation of Econometric Models, New York : New York University Press.
- Cubitt, R. P. et R. Sugden (1998), « The Selection of Preferences through Imitation », Review of Economic Studies, 65 : 761-771.
- Dawes, R. M. (1979), « The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making », American Psychology, 34(7) : 571-582.
- Diamond, P. et M. Rothschild (éds) (1978), Uncertainty in Economics, Readings and Exercises, Academic Press, New York.
- Donkers, B., B. Melenberg et A. Van Soest (2001), « Estimating Risk attitudes Using Lotteries: a Large Sample Approach », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22 : 165-195.
- Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004), « Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3) : 217-235.
- Etchart-Vincent, N. (2006), « Expériences de laboratoire en économie et incitations monétaires », Revue d’Économie Politique, 117(3) : 383-418.
- Etchart-Vincent, N. (2007), Probability Weighting and the Payoff Structure of the Gamble: An Experimental Study over Losses, miméo, CIRED, CNRS/EHESS/ ENPC/ENGREF.
- Fantino, E. et S. Stolarz-Fantino (2001), « Behavioral and Economic Approaches to Decision Making: A Common Ground », (Open Peer Commentary to R. Hertwig and A. Ortmann), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3) : 407-408.
- Fox, C. R., B. A. Rogers et A. Tversky (1996), « Option Traders Exhibit Subadditive Decision Weights », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13 : 5-17.
- Friedman, D. et S. Saunder (1994), Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Friedman, M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
- Friedman, M. et L. J. Savage (1948), « The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk », Journal of Political Economy, 56 : 279-304.
- Ganderton, P. T., D. S. Brookshire, M. McKee, S. Stewart et H. Thurston (2000), « Buying Insurance for Disaster-Type Risks: Experimental Evidence », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(3) : 271-289.
- Gillies, A. S. et M. Rigdon (2001), « Theory-testing Experiments in the Economics Laboratory », (Open Peer Commentary to R. Hertwig and A. Ortmann), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3) : 410-411.
- Goldstein, W. M. et H. J. Einhorn (1987), « Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon », Psychological Review, 94 : 236-254.
- Goodie, A. S. et E. Fantino (1996), « Learning to Commit or Avoid the Base-Rate Error », Nature, 380 : 247-249.
- Goodie, A. S. et E. Fantino (1999), « What Does and Does Not Alleviate Base-Rate Neglect under Direct Experience », Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12 : 307-335.
- Grether, D. M. (1980), « Bayes Rule as a Description Model: The Representativeness Heuristic », Quaterly Journal of Economics, 95 : 537-557.
- Grether, D. M. et C. R. Plott (1979), « Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon », American Economic Review, 69(4) : 623-638.
- Harless, D. W. et C. F. Camerer (1994), « The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories », Econometrica, 62(6) : 1 251-1 289.
- Harrison, G. W. (1994), « Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists », Empirical Economics, 19 : 223-253.
- Harrison, G. W. et J. A. List (2004), « Field Experiment », Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4) : 1013-1059.
- Henrich, J. (2001), « Challenges to Everyone: Real People, Deception, One-Shot Games, Social Learning and Computers » (Open Peer Commentary to R. Hertwig and A. Ortmann), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3) : 414-415.
- Hershey, J. C. et P. J. H. Schoemaker (1980), « Risk Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses: An Expected Utility Analysis », Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47 : 111-132.
- Hertwig, R. et A. Ortmann (2001), « Experimental Practices in Economics: A Methodological Challenge for Psychologists? », Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 : 383-451.
- Hey, J. (1991), Experiments in Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
- Hirshleifer, J. et J. G. Riley (1992), The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
- Hirshleifer, D. A. et T. Shumway (2001), Good Day Sunshine: Stock Returns and the Weather, Dice Center Working Paper No. 2001-3.
- Isaac, R. M. et D. James (2000), « Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse? », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2) : 177-187.
- Johnson, E. J., J. Hershey, J. Meszaros et H. Kunreuther (1993), « Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7 : 35-51.
- Kachelmeier, S. J. et M.Shehata (1992), « Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the people’s Republic of China », American Economic Review, 82(5) : 1 120-1 141.
- Kahneman, D. et A.Tversky (1979), « Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk », Econometrica, 47 : 263-291.
- Keeney, R. L. et H. Raiffa (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Wiley, New York.
- Kleindorfer, P. R. et H. Kunreuther (1982), « Misinformation and Equilibrium in Insurance Markets », dans J. Finsinger (éd.), Issues in Pricing and Regulation, Lexington Books.
- Lichtenstein, S. et P. Slovic (1973), « Response-Induced Reversals of Preferences in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas », Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101 : 16-20.
- Loomes, G. (1991), « Evidence of a New Violation of the Independence Axiom », Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4 : 91-108.
- Loomes, G. (1998), « Probabilities Versus Money: A Test of Some Fundamental Assumptions about Rational Decision Making », Economic Journal, 108 : 477-489.
- Loomes, G. et R. Sugden (1995), « Incorporating a Stochastic Element into Decision Theories », European Economic Review, 39 : 641-648.
- Luce, D. R., B. A. Mellers et S.-J. Chang (1993), « Is Choice the Correct Primitive? On Using Certainty Equivalents and Reference Levels to Predict Choices Among Gambles », Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 6 : 115-143.
- Machina, M. (1987), « Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved », Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1 : 121-154.
- Myagkov, M. et C. R. Plott (1997), « Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments », American Economic Review, 87 : 801-828.
- Ohana, M. (2004), « L’expérimentation en économie et en psychologie : une comparaison méthodologique », Revue de Philosophie Économique, (10) : 97-122.
- Payne, J. W. et M. L. Braunstein (1971), « Preferences among Gambles with Equal Underlying Distributions », Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87 : 13-18.
- Plott, C. R. (1991), « Will Economics Become and Experimental Science? », Southern Economic Journal, 57 : 901-919.
- Plott, C. R. (1996), « Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis », dans K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman et C. Schmidt (éds), Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, London : Mcmillan and NY : St. Martin’s, p. 225-250.
- Read, D. (2005), « Monetary Incentives, What Are They Good For? », Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2) : 265-276.
- Roth, A. (1988), « Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: A Methodological Overview », Economic Journal, 98 : 974-1031.
- Russell, T. et R. Thaler (1985), « The Relevance of Quasi Rationality in Competitive Markets », American Economic Review, 75(5) : 1071-1082.
- Samuelson, P. (1963), « Risk and Uncertainty: A Fallacy of Large Numbers », Scienta, 98 : 108-113.
- Samuelson, P et W. Nordhaus (1985), Principles of Economics, 12e édition, New York : McGraw-Hill.
- Schoemaker, P. J. H. et J. C. Hershey (1992), « Utility Measurement: Signal, Noise, and Bias », Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 52 : 397-424.
- Schoemaker, P. J. H. et H. C. Kunreuther (1979), « An Experimental Study of Insurance Decisions », Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46 : 603-618.
- Shapira, Z. (2000), Aspiration Levels and Risk Taking: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Study on the Behavior of Government Bond Traders, manuscrit non publié, New York University.
- Simon, H. A. (1955), « A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice », Quaterly Journal of Economics, 69 : 99-118.
- Slovic, P. (1969), « Differential Effects of Real versus Hypothetical Payoffs on Choices Among Gambles », Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80 : 434-437.
- Smith, V. L. (1994), « Economics in the Laboratory », Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1) : 113-131.
- Smith, V. L. et J.Walker (1993), « Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics », Economic Inquiry, 31 : 245-261.
- Sprinkle, G. B. (2003), « Perspectives on Experimental Research in Managerial Accounting », Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 : 287-318.
- Starmer, C. (1999a), « Experiments in Economics: Should We Trust the Dismal Scientists in White Coats? », Journal of Economic Methodology, 6(1) : 1-30.
- Starmer, C. (1999b), « Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering? », Economic Journal, 109 : 5-15.
- Timmermann, A. G (1993), « Can Agents Learn to Form Rational Expectations? Some Results on Convergence and Stability of Learning in the UK Stock Market », Economic Journal, 104 : 777-798.
- Thaler, R. (1987), « The Psychology of Choice and the Assumptions of Economics », dans A. E. Roth (éd.), Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, Cambridge University Press.
- Tversky, A. et D. Kahneman (1986), « Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions », Journal of Business, 59(4) : 251-278.
- Tversky, A., S. Sattah et P. Slovic (1988), « Contingent Weighting in Judgment in Choice », Psychological Review, 95(3) : 371-384.
- Wallis, W. A. et M. Friedman (1942), « The empirical derivation of indifference functions », dans O. Lange, F. McIntyre et T. O. Yntema (éds), Studies in Mathematical economics and econometrics in memory of Henry Schultz, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
- Wärneryd, K.-E. (1996), « Risk Attitudes and Risky Behavior », Journal of Economic Psychology, 17 : 749-770.