Search results

This chapter discusses the benefits, limitations, and challenges in developing research projects that integrate a combination of archival, behavioral, and qualitative research methods. By demonstrating the inherent strengths and weaknesses of using a single method in isolation, this chapter aims to broaden our understanding of why and how research that examines various issues from the different perspectives is richer than employing any single method and enhances our understanding of a given accounting phenomenon. This chapter also discusses how investigating an issue through multiple research methods can help researchers improve the generalizability of findings and present a panoramic view of a particular phenomenon.

We discuss the following three themes on the use of field experiments to study economic development: (1) We summarize the arguments for and against using experiments to gather behavioral data in the field; (2) We argue and illustrate that field experiments can provide data on behavior that can be used in subsequent analyses of the effect of behavioral social capital on economic outcomes; and (3) We illustrate that field experiments can be used as a development tool on their own to teach communities about incentives and strategic interaction.

What is behavioral economics? This chapter explores a mismatch between what is included in the field of behavioral economics and some of the most visible Austrian critiques of behavioral economics. While paternalism, nudging, and a focus on irrationalities and biases are a big part of modern behavioral economics, the portrayal of the field of behavioral economics as being focused predominately upon those areas leaves a swath of low-hanging fruit that would be beneficial for Austrian scholars to consume and use in their own work.

We develop an experimental setting where the assumptions and predictions of the garbage can model can be tested. A careful reconstruction of the original simulation model let us select parameters that leave room for potential variations in individual behavior. Our experimental design replicates these parameters and thereby facilitates comparison of human behavior with the original model. We find that the majority strategy of human subjects is consistent with the original model, but exhibits some behavioral diversity. Human subjects exhibit fluid diverse behaviors that improve coordination in the face of uncertainty, but hinder collective learning that can improve group performance.

Experimental economics has been treated with skepticism by some Austrian economists. We argue that experimental methods are consistent with strong versions of praxeology, and are therefore not methodologically problematic for Austrians. We further argue that experimental research methods have illustrated many uniquely Austrian themes and provide a fruitful method for future Austrian-inspired research.

I propose a model of behavior in social interactions where individuals maximize a three-term utility function: a conventional consumption utility term and two “social” terms that capture social preference. One social term is a taste for desert, which is maximized when the individual believes the other person is getting what they deserve. The second social term measures the target individuals’ anger or gratitude from the interaction which is determined by a value function derived from prospect theory. After introducing the model and generating a series of comparative statics results and derived predictions, I report the results of a series of quasi-field experiments on social preferences. I discuss how the model explains several paradoxes of empirical moral philosophy that are less explicable by current economic models of social preference focusing on outcomes and intentions.

To investigate the external validity of Ultimatum and Dictator game behavior we conduct experiments in field settings with naturally occurring variation in “social framing.” Our participants are students at Middlebury College, non-traditional students at Kansas City Kansas Community College (KCKCC), and employees at a Kansas City distribution center. Ultimatum game offers are ordered: KCKCC > employee > Middlebury. In the Dictator game employees are more generous than students in either location. Workers behaved distinctly from both student groups in that their allocations do not decrease between games, an effect we attribute to the social framing of the workplace.

COVID-19 has generated unprecedented circumstances with a tremendous impact on the global community. The academic community has also been affected by the current pandemic, with strategy and management researchers now required to adapt elements of their research process from study design through to data collection and analysis. This chapter makes a contribution to the research methods literature by documenting the process of adapting research in light of rapidly changing circumstances, using vignettes of doctoral students from around the world. In sharing their experience of shifting from the initially proposed methodologies to their modified or completely new methodologies, they demonstrate the critical importance of adaptability in research. In doing so, this chapter draws on core literature of adaptation and conducting research in times of crises, aiming to provide key learnings, methodological tips and a “story of hope” for scholars who may be faced with similar challenges in the future.

In recent years, traditional legal systems have been increasingly challenged by the rapid and wide-ranging changes induced by modern technology and science which constantly transform our economies and societies. The rise of a new type of scholarship in contemporary legal thought can be understood in the light of the growing disjunction between the traditional methods of law dealing with social problems and the overall pragmatic spirit of the globalized economies. The intrinsic conservatism of traditional law is sometimes (more or less explicitly) accused of being inadequate to cope with the problems raised by the application of new technologies and sciences, or worse, of being an impediment to the development of the full potential of the modern economies.

We test whether party affiliation or ideological leanings influence subjects' behavior in public goods experiments and trust games. In general, party is unrelated to behavior, and ideology is not related to contributions in the public goods experiment. However, there is some evidence that self-described liberals are both more trusting and more trustworthy.