Experimental research in business and economics has exploded in recent years in both laboratory and field settings. The generality of findings from field experiments is limited by the specificity of the experimental environment. Laboratory studies, on the other hand, are criticized for being devoid of the contextual cues that may indicate to decision makers the nature of the problem and, thus, the appropriate approaches to problem solving. Virtual experiments provide a hybrid of strengths from each of these two experimental protocols that may overcome some of the limitations of each. Using a modified, commercial, adventure game with an appended Sequel database, this research reprises a well-known study of risk aversion within a virtual context. The results indicate that very similar overall measures of risk aversion can be obtained within an adventure game context. Furthermore, it shows that experimentation within this virtual environment permits outcomes to be recorded and analyzed regarding decision consistency, decision revisions, and psychological/behavioral variables that have not been available using either traditional lab or field research methods. As such, this study contributes both to the literature on behavioral business research methodology in general and to the literature on risk aversion in particular.
Anderson, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., & Rutstrom, E.E. (2007). Valuation using multiple price list formats. Applied Economics, 39, 675-682.
2.
Bainbridge, W.S. ( 2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472-476.
3.
Barberis, N. ( 2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (pp. 1052-1121). Amsterdam : Elsevier.
4.
Binswanger, H.P. ( 1980). Attitude toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 395-407.
5.
Camerer, C., & Lowenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: past, present, and future. In C. Camerer, G. Lowenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics (pp. 3-53) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press/ Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
Camerer, C.F., & Thaler, R. ( 1995). Anomalies: dictators, ultimatums, and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209-219.
7.
Castronova, E. ( 2005a). On the research value of large games: Natural experiments in Norrath and Camelot (CESifo Working Paper No. 1621). Bloomington: Indiana University . Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://www.SSRN.com/abstract=875571
8.
Castronova, E. ( 2005b). Synthetic Worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Cooper, D.J., Dagel, J.H., Lo, W., & Gu, Q.L. ( 1999). Gaming against managers in incentive systems: Experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. American Economic Review, 89, 781-804.
10.
Fiore, S.M., Harrison, G.W., Hughes, C.E., & Rutstrom, E.E. (in press). Virtual experiments and environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management .
11.
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G.F. , O’Donaghue , T. (2001). Time discounting: A critical review. Unpublished working paper. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu/papers/conference/200111/paper12.pdf
12.
Gigerenzer, G. ( 2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Viking Press.
13.
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-based decision theory . Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1233-1260.
14.
Goldstein, W.M., & Weber, E.U. ( 1995). Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. In J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie , & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 32: Decision making from a cognitive perspective (pp. 83-136). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Harrison, G.W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M.M., & Rutstrom, E.E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95, 897-901.
16.
Harrison, G.W., & List, J.A. ( 2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009-1055.
17.
Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., & Rustrom, E.E. ( 2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment . Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 190, 341-368.
18.
Harrison, G.W., List, J.A., & Towe, C. ( 2007). Naturally occurring references and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75, 433-458.
19.
Hershey, J.C., Kunreuther, H.C., & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1982). Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science28, 936-945.
20.
Holt, C.A., & Laury, S.K. ( 2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644-1655.
21.
Holt, C.A., & Laury, S.K. ( 2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95, 902-904.
22.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. ( 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
23.
Karlan, D.S. ( 2005). Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. American Economics Review , 95, 1688-1699.
24.
Lawson, C., & Lawson, L. ( 2008, January 3-5). Using lessons from video games to teach business and economics. Prepared for American Economic Association Poster Session: On Teaching Techniques That Promote Active Learning , New Orleans, LA.
25.
Leung, A., Diller, D., & Ferguson, W. ( 2005). SABRE: A game-based testbed for studying team behavior . BBN technologies: Unpublished manuscript.
26.
Lofgren, E.F., & Fefferman, N.H. (2007). The untapped potential of virtual worlds to shed light on real world epidemics. Lancet: Infectious Diseases, 7, 625-629.
27.
Loewenstein, G. ( 1996). Behavioral decision theory and business ethics: Skewed tradeoffs between self and other. In D. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 214-226). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
28.
Loewenstein, G. ( 2001). The creative destruction of decision research. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 499-505.
McCabe, K.A., Rigdon, M.L., & Smith, V.L. ( 2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, 267-275.
31.
Milgram, S. ( 1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
32.
Nobel Prize Committee. (2002). Advance information on the prize in economic sciences: Foundations of behavioral and experimental economics: Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences .
33.
Ross, L., & Ward, A. ( 1996). Naïve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed (Ed.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Sabre. (2006). [Prepared for Defense Modeling and Simulation Office of the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, and U.S. Army Research Laboratory]. Cambridge, MA: BBN Technologies.
35.
Sanchez-Vives, M., & Slater, M. ( 2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality . Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(April), 332-339.
36.
Shleifer, A. ( 2000). Inefficient markets: An introduction to behavioral finance . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e39.
38.
Smith, V. ( 2002). Constructive and ecological rationality in economics (Nobel Prize lecture). Retrieved December 8, 2002, from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/smith-lecture.pdf
39.
Taleb, N.N. ( 2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
40.
Warren, R., Diller, D.E., Leung, A., Ferguson, W., & J. Sutton. (2005). Simulating scenarios for research on culture & cognition using a commercial role-play game. In M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger , F. B. Armstrong, & J. A. Joines (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 1109-1117). Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc05papers/134.pdf
