Behavioural Effects and Market Dynamics in Field and Laboratory Experimental Asset Markets

A vast literature investigating behavioural underpinnings of financial bubbles and crashes relies on laboratory experiments. However, it is not yet clear how findings generated in a highly artificial environment relate to the human behaviour in the wild. It is of concern that the laboratory setting may create a confound variable that impacts the experimental results. To explore the similarities and differences between human behaviour in the laboratory environment and in a realistic natural setting, with the same type of participants, we translate a field study conducted by reference (Sornette, D.; et al. Econ. E-J. 2020, 14, 1–53) with trading rounds each lasting six full days to a laboratory experiment lasting two hours. The laboratory experiment replicates the key findings from the field study but we observe substantial differences in the market dynamics between the two settings. The replication of the results in the two distinct settings indicates that relaxing some of the laboratory control does not corrupt the main findings, while at the same time it offers several advantages such as the possibility to increase the number of participants interacting with each other at the same time and the number of traded securities. These findings pose important insights for future experiments investigating human behaviour in complex systems.

[1]  Wolfram Schultz,et al.  BOLD responses in reward regions to hypothetical and imaginary monetary rewards , 2012, NeuroImage.

[2]  Daniel L. Chen,et al.  oTree - An Open-Source Platform for Laboratory, Online, and Field Experiments , 2016 .

[3]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The description–experience gap in risky choice , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  The Promise and Success of Lab-Field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List , 2011 .

[5]  Elizabeth Bruch,et al.  Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts. , 2017, Annual review of sociology.

[6]  J. Huber,et al.  Bubble measures in experimental asset markets , 2010 .

[7]  A. Morone,et al.  Asset markets in the lab: A literature review , 2017 .

[8]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible? , 1995 .

[9]  P. W. Lamberti,et al.  Jensen-Shannon divergence as a measure of distinguishability between mixed quantum states , 2005, quant-ph/0508138.

[10]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[11]  John A. List,et al.  Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards , 2001 .

[12]  Rachel T. A. Croson,et al.  Gender Differences in Preferences , 2009 .

[13]  I. Blanchette,et al.  The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning , 2010 .

[14]  Sameh S. Askar,et al.  Dynamic Effects Arise Due to Consumers’ Preferences Depending on Past Choices , 2020, Entropy.

[15]  A. Rustichini,et al.  Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All , 2000 .

[16]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economies , 1982 .

[17]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Thar SHE Blows? Gender, Competition, and Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets† , 2015 .

[18]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Experimental Economics From the Vantage‐point of Behavioural Economics , 1999 .

[19]  Pedro Aguilera Aguilera,et al.  Analyzing Uncertainty in Complex Socio-Ecological Networks , 2020, Entropy.

[20]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World , 2007 .

[21]  John A. List,et al.  Homo economicus Evolves , 2008, Science.

[22]  J. O'Doherty,et al.  Human Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Is Recruited during Experience of Imagined and Real Rewards Prescan Training , 2022 .

[23]  Stephan Meier,et al.  Do People Behave in Experiments as in the Field? Evidence from Donations , 2006 .

[24]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Does Game Theory Work? The Bargaining Challenge , 2007 .

[25]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[26]  Dirk J. Heslenfeld,et al.  Activity in human reward-sensitive brain areas is strongly context dependent , 2005, NeuroImage.

[27]  Richard M. Ryan,et al.  The Emerging Neuroscience of Intrinsic Motivation: A New Frontier in Self-Determination Research , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[28]  Arlington Williams,et al.  Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets , 2018, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

[29]  Stefan Palan A Review of Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Asset Markets , 2013 .

[30]  C. Plott,et al.  NONSPECULATIVE BUBBLES IN EXPERIMENTAL ASSET MARKETS: LACK OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF RATIONALITY VS. ACTUAL IRRATIONALITY , 2001 .

[31]  Emil Dinga,et al.  Social Entropy and Normative Network , 2020, Entropy.

[32]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement , 1988 .

[33]  O. Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research , 2005 .

[34]  S. Sunder Experimental Asset Markets: A Survey , 1992 .

[35]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

[36]  Hod Lipson,et al.  A Universal Framework for Analysis of Self-Replication Phenomena , 2009, Entropy.

[37]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Viewpoint: On the Generalizability of Lab Behaviour to the Field , 2007 .

[38]  David H. Reiley,et al.  What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Professionals Do Not Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments , 2010 .

[39]  Jamie B. Kruse,et al.  A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points , 2001 .

[40]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[41]  Catherine A. Hartley,et al.  Anxiety and Decision-Making , 2012, Biological Psychiatry.

[42]  F. Knight The economic nature of the firm: From Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit , 2009 .

[43]  Jordan B. Peterson,et al.  Psychological entropy: a framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety. , 2012, Psychological review.

[44]  G. Charness,et al.  Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all , 2016 .

[45]  Alan Macfarlane,et al.  Social , 1994, Schizophrenia Research.

[46]  Arthur Schram,et al.  Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments , 2005 .

[47]  Joy E. Beatty,et al.  Grades as Money and the Role of the Market Metaphor in Management Education , 2004 .

[48]  V. Smith,et al.  Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets , 1988 .

[49]  D. Sornette,et al.  Overpricing persistence in experimental asset markets with intrinsic uncertainty , 2020, Economics.

[50]  Gideon Nave,et al.  Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics , 2016, Science.

[51]  Sindhu R Johnson,et al.  A valid and reliable belief elicitation method for Bayesian priors. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[52]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting an open research culture , 2015, Science.

[53]  D. Navarro,et al.  The Illusion of control: structure, measurement and dependence on reinforcement frequency in the context of a laboratory gambling task , 2010 .

[54]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  A web-based tool for eliciting probability distributions from experts , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[55]  Gijs van de Kuilen,et al.  Belief Elicitation: A Horse Race Among Truth Serums , 2011 .

[56]  David H. Reiley,et al.  What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments , 2009 .

[57]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[58]  R. Adolphs,et al.  Social and monetary reward learning engage overlapping neural substrates. , 2012, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[59]  Owen Powell,et al.  Experimental asset markets: A survey of recent developments ☆ , 2016 .