Experimental Law and Economics
Experimental Law and Economics
复制标题
实验法经济学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Talley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jennifer H. Arlen;E. Talley
本章为评估法学和经济学实验的贡献提供了一个框架。我们确定了确定实验有效性的标准，并发现这些标准取决于实验的目的和实验所涉及的行为理论。虽然所有的实验都必须满足控制、理论的可证伪性、内部一致性、外部一致性和可复制性等标准实验要求，但实验是否也必须关注上下文的问题——在与所研究的现实世界选择相匹配的意义上——取决于实验所测试或涉及的决策的基本理论。我们发现上下文注意的重要性取决于实验是否测试或暗示决策的“单一过程”理论或多过程理论。单一过程理论假定人们在广泛的（或普遍的）活动领域中采用单一的操作方法来做出决策。理性选择理论是一种一元过程理论。因为单一过程理论假定人们在所有情况下都采用相同的决策程序，实验者可以用一个与现实世界的选择几乎没有相似之处的实验选择来证伪单一过程理论。对单一过程解释的信念，还允许法律决策者从涉及相当人为选择的实验中得出广泛的规范含义。相比之下，多过程理论认为，人们在做出选择时采用多种决策程序。此外，这些计划的相对影响可能取决于决策的背景。这种假定的环境和决策之间的相互作用意味着，试图研究法律决策的实验学家必须对现实世界中可能影响审议和无意识程序的环境因素敏感。此外，决策者在使用实验证据得出规范性政策结论之前必须谨慎行事，因为实验结果可能在不同背景下都不可靠。
This chapter provides a framework for assessing the contributions of experiments in Law and Economics. We identify criteria for determining the validity of an experiment and find that these criteria depend upon both the purpose of the experiment and the theory of behavior implicated by the experiment. While all experiments must satisfy the standard experimental desiderata of control, falsifiability of theory, internal consistency, external consistency and replicability, the question of whether an experiment also must be contextually attentive - in the sense of matching the real world choice being studied - depends on the underlying theory of decision-making being tested or implicated by the experiment. We find that the importance of contextual attentiveness depends on whether the experiment tests or implicates a "nitary-process" theory of decision-making or a multiple-process theory. Unitary-process theories posit that people employ a single operational approach to make decisions across a broad (or universal) domain of activity. Rational Choice Theory is a unitary-process theory. Because unitary-process theories posit that people employ the same decision-making program in all contexts, experimenters can falsify a unitary-process theory using an experimental choice which bears little resemblance to any real-world choice. Faith in a unitary process account also permits legal policymakers to draw broad normative implications from experiments involving quite artificial choices. By contrast, multiple-process theories hold that people employ multiple decision-making programs when they make choices. Moreover, the relative impact of these programs can depend on the context of the decision. This posited interaction between context and decision-making implies that experimentalists seeking to examine legal decision-making must be sensitive to contextual factors likely to affect deliberative and non-conscious programs in the real world. In addition, policymakers must proceed cautiously before using experimental evidence to draw normative policy conclusions because experimental results may not be robust across contexts.
影响因子：
16.4
作者：
Wegner, DM;Wheatley, T
通讯作者：
Wheatley, T