Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:42:18.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXTERNAL VALIDITY AND LIBRARIES OF PHENOMENA: A CRITIQUE OF GUALA'S METHODOLOGY OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2011

Martin K. Jones
Martin K. Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Dundee, UKm.k.jones@dundee.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Francesco Guala has developed some novel and radical ideas on the problem of external validity, a topic that has not received much attention in the experimental economics literature. In this paper I argue that his views on external validity are not justified and the conclusions which he draws from these views, if widely adopted, could substantially undermine the experimental economics enterprise. In rejecting the justification of these views, the paper reaffirms the importance of experiments in economics.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 247 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bardsley, N. 2005. Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Experimental Methodology 12: 239–251.Google Scholar
Barkley Rosser, J. and Eckel, C. (eds) 2010. JEBO special issue on ‘Issues in the Methodology of Experimental Economics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 73: 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton. NJ: Russell Sage Foundation Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 1998. Experiments as mediators in the non-laboratory sciences. Philosophica 62: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 1999. The problem of external validity (or ‘parallelism’) in experimental economics. Social Science Information 38: 555–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2003. Experimental localism and external validity. Philosophy of Science 70: 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2005a. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2005b. Economics in the lab: completeness vs testability. Journal of Economic Methodology 12: 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2008. The experimental philosophy of experimental economics: replies to Alexandrova, Hargreaves Heap, Hausman and Hindriks. Journal of Economic Methodology 15: 224–231.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992. The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. Pickering, A., 29–64. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, R.S., Doane, M.J. and Woo, C.-K. 1991. Consumer rationality and the status quo. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. 2008. Experimenting on models and on the world. Journal of Economic Methodology 15: 209–216.Google Scholar
Hawley, J.F. and Holcomb, K.A. 1998. Foundations of Modern Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, M.K. 2008. On the autonomy of experiments in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 15: 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 2: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, H. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knetsch, K.L. and Sinden, J.A. 1984. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99: 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. 1982. Regret theory: an alternative theory of choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 92: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, K.A. 2008. Neuroeconomics and the economic sciences. Economics and Philosophy 24: 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M.C. and Morgan, M.S. 1999. Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. 1991. Will economics become an experimental science? Southern Economic Journal 57: 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V. 1982. Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review 72: 923–955.Google Scholar
Smith, V. 1994. Economics in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. 1999. Experiments in economics: should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats? Journal of Economic Methodology 6: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. 1993. Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6: 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S.C. and Hoekstra, R.F. 2000. Evolution: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W.H. and Magat, W.A. 1992. Bayesian decisions with ambiguity belief aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, N.T. 2008. Against simplicity and cognitive individualism. Economics and Philosophy 24: 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar