{"title":"不同搜索实验设计中的行为变化","authors":"Yuta Kittaka , Ryo Mikami , Natsumi Shimada","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper summarizes the leading search experiment designs and conducts an experiment to compare searcher behavior under the various search designs. We categorize existing experiment designs as passive, quasi-active, and active according to the degree of flexibility in decision-making regarding the search. Despite the experimental designs being based on an identical model, our experimental results indicate that there are significant differences in participants’ behavior across designs. The average number of searches was the highest and closest to the theory-predicted value in the active design. In contrast, participants searched significantly less in the quasi-active and passive designs compared with the active design. These results suggest that the widely accepted design, which requires participants to make decisions based on a given offer rather than choosing among potential alternatives themselves, may have unexpected effects on participants’ behavior. Furthermore, we found that participants’ risk aversion had a significant effect only in the passive design, implying that differences in out-of-model factors across designs (e.g., the timing of decision-making and recall settings) might influence behavior through risk preferences. We also provide other methodological implications for future experiments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 102428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioral changes in different designs of search experiments\",\"authors\":\"Yuta Kittaka , Ryo Mikami , Natsumi Shimada\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper summarizes the leading search experiment designs and conducts an experiment to compare searcher behavior under the various search designs. We categorize existing experiment designs as passive, quasi-active, and active according to the degree of flexibility in decision-making regarding the search. Despite the experimental designs being based on an identical model, our experimental results indicate that there are significant differences in participants’ behavior across designs. The average number of searches was the highest and closest to the theory-predicted value in the active design. In contrast, participants searched significantly less in the quasi-active and passive designs compared with the active design. These results suggest that the widely accepted design, which requires participants to make decisions based on a given offer rather than choosing among potential alternatives themselves, may have unexpected effects on participants’ behavior. Furthermore, we found that participants’ risk aversion had a significant effect only in the passive design, implying that differences in out-of-model factors across designs (e.g., the timing of decision-making and recall settings) might influence behavior through risk preferences. We also provide other methodological implications for future experiments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":\"118 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102428\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"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/S2214804325000928\",\"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/S2214804325000928","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Behavioral changes in different designs of search experiments
This paper summarizes the leading search experiment designs and conducts an experiment to compare searcher behavior under the various search designs. We categorize existing experiment designs as passive, quasi-active, and active according to the degree of flexibility in decision-making regarding the search. Despite the experimental designs being based on an identical model, our experimental results indicate that there are significant differences in participants’ behavior across designs. The average number of searches was the highest and closest to the theory-predicted value in the active design. In contrast, participants searched significantly less in the quasi-active and passive designs compared with the active design. These results suggest that the widely accepted design, which requires participants to make decisions based on a given offer rather than choosing among potential alternatives themselves, may have unexpected effects on participants’ behavior. Furthermore, we found that participants’ risk aversion had a significant effect only in the passive design, implying that differences in out-of-model factors across designs (e.g., the timing of decision-making and recall settings) might influence behavior through risk preferences. We also provide other methodological implications for future experiments.
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.