在实验室测试政策干预:学生和非学生在转换银行账户方面的差异

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Antonios Proestakis , Ginevra Marandola , Joana S. Lourenço , René van Bavel
{"title":"在实验室测试政策干预:学生和非学生在转换银行账户方面的差异","authors":"Antonios Proestakis ,&nbsp;Ginevra Marandola ,&nbsp;Joana S. Lourenço ,&nbsp;René van Bavel","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The reliance on student samples has long been a subject of debate in experimental approaches to studying behaviour. We contribute to this discussion by looking at differences in financial behaviour between a student and a non-student sample in three sets of lab experiments conducted in Spain, Germany and Poland (n=857). Participants from both samples switched more often and made better financial decisions after they received a message encouraging them to switch financial service providers. While the size of the effect on switching frequency was comparable between the two samples, the effect on switching quality was significantly stronger on non-students. Further analysis suggests this is due to a better performance of students before the prompt leaving less room for improvement by the reminder. Results suggest that experimental evidence derived from students should be generalized with caution.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000582/pdfft?md5=4e6efb031e1e900ed9b742e53f951d27&pid=1-s2.0-S2214804324000582-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing a policy intervention in the lab: differences between students and non-students in switching bank accounts\",\"authors\":\"Antonios Proestakis ,&nbsp;Ginevra Marandola ,&nbsp;Joana S. Lourenço ,&nbsp;René van Bavel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The reliance on student samples has long been a subject of debate in experimental approaches to studying behaviour. We contribute to this discussion by looking at differences in financial behaviour between a student and a non-student sample in three sets of lab experiments conducted in Spain, Germany and Poland (n=857). Participants from both samples switched more often and made better financial decisions after they received a message encouraging them to switch financial service providers. While the size of the effect on switching frequency was comparable between the two samples, the effect on switching quality was significantly stronger on non-students. Further analysis suggests this is due to a better performance of students before the prompt leaving less room for improvement by the reminder. Results suggest that experimental evidence derived from students should be generalized with caution.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000582/pdfft?md5=4e6efb031e1e900ed9b742e53f951d27&pid=1-s2.0-S2214804324000582-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000582\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000582","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在研究行为的实验方法中,对学生样本的依赖一直是一个争论不休的话题。我们通过在西班牙、德国和波兰进行的三组实验室实验(样本数=857),研究了学生样本和非学生样本在金融行为上的差异,为这一讨论做出了贡献。两个样本的参与者在收到鼓励他们更换金融服务提供商的信息后,更换金融服务的频率更高,做出的金融决策也更好。虽然两个样本对转换频率的影响大小相当,但对非学生转换质量的影响明显更大。进一步分析表明,这是由于学生在收到提示信息之前的表现较好,因此提示信息的改进空间较小。结果表明,从学生身上获得的实验证据应谨慎推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing a policy intervention in the lab: differences between students and non-students in switching bank accounts

The reliance on student samples has long been a subject of debate in experimental approaches to studying behaviour. We contribute to this discussion by looking at differences in financial behaviour between a student and a non-student sample in three sets of lab experiments conducted in Spain, Germany and Poland (n=857). Participants from both samples switched more often and made better financial decisions after they received a message encouraging them to switch financial service providers. While the size of the effect on switching frequency was comparable between the two samples, the effect on switching quality was significantly stronger on non-students. Further analysis suggests this is due to a better performance of students before the prompt leaving less room for improvement by the reminder. Results suggest that experimental evidence derived from students should be generalized with caution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信