Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T20:31:39.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ben Greiner
Ben Greiner*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
*
e-mail: bgreiner@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses aspects of recruiting subjects for economic laboratory experiments, and shows how the Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments can help. The software package provides experimenters with a free, convenient, and very powerful tool to organize their experiments and sessions.

Keywords

Laboratory experimentsSubject recruitmentSoftware

JEL classification

C90: General C81: Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data • Data Access
Type
Experimental Tools
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2015 , pp. 114 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2015

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.)

Footnotes

I thank Johannes Hoelzemann for research assistance, Ashneil Roy for support in the programming of some of the user interfaces, and ORSEE users all over the world for their comments and support. Financial support from the Australian Research Council and the UNSW Experimental Business Research Laboratory is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Casari, M., Ham, J., Kagel, J. (2007). Selection bias, demographic effects and ability effects in common value auctions experiments. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1278–1304. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleave, B., Nikiforakis, N., Slonim, R. (2013). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 372–382. 10.1007/s10683-012-9342-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutts, L. M., Schneider, F. W. (1975). Recruitment of experimental subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 142. 10.2466/pms.1975.41.1.142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. N. (1978). Subject recruitment incentives, personality factors, and attitudes towards experimentation in a simultaneous intentional-incidential learning task. Journal of General Psychology, 99, 99–105. 10.1080/00221309.1978.9920900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Meier, S., Zehnder, C. (2013). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 839–852. 10.1111/jeea.12019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., Lau, M., Rutström, E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70, 498–507. 10.1016/j.jebo.2008.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. M., Procidano, M. E., Cohen, C. J. (1989). Subject pool sign-up procedures: a threat to external validity. Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 29–43. 10.2224/sbp.1989.17.1.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, J. (1969). Current practices and problems in the use of college students for psychological research. The Canadian Psychologist, 10, 280–290. 10.1037/h0082535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawczyk, M. (2011). What brings subjects to the lab? Experimental Economics, 14(4), 482–489. 10.1007/s10683-011-9277-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. (1975). The volunteer subject, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rush, M. C., Phillips, J. S., Panek, P. E. (1978). Subject recruitment bias: the paid volunteer subject. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 443–449. 10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., Clayton, J. P. (1985). A method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1703–1712. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senn, C. Y., Desmarais, S. (2001). Are our recruitment practices for sex studies working across gender? The effect of topic and gender of recruiter on participation rates of university men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 111–117. 10.1080/00224490109552078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, I., Margulis, S. (1973). Experiment title as a source of sampling bias in commonly used ‘subject pool’ procedures. The Canadian Psychologist, 14, 197–201. 10.1037/h0082218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slonim, R., Wang, C., Garbarino, E., Merrett, D. (2013). Opting-in: participation bias in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 90, 43–70. 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M. E., Schubert, D. S. P. (1976). Increasing volunteer representativeness by recruiting for credit or pay. The Journal of General Psychology, 94, 85–91. 10.1080/00221309.1976.9711593CrossRefGoogle Scholar