Searching for the external validity of social preference games: A guide of field environments based on expert perceptions

The last couple of decades have witnessed a lively debate on the external validity of social preference games. Yet, scientific progress in this area has been restrained by the difficulty of delineating the field environments that social preference games should generalize to. Here we present three studies investigating the field environments and behaviors to which social preference games are expected to relate, according to specialist researchers. In Study 1, we systematically reviewed all the papers published in the top 5 economics journals that used social preference games, and we analyzed the field settings explicitly linked to the games by the authors. In Study 2, we used large language models to expand our analysis of the literature beyond the top 5. In Study 3, we conducted a survey among members of the Economic Science Association (ESA) mailing list to investigate the field environments they viewed as most closely associated with different social preference games. Overall, our results provide a rich guide to the types of field settings that are expected to relate to social preference games, according to the people who use them. This guide constitutes a useful reference to organize future research on external validity and make it more systematic.

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107251
Primary Topic
Archaeological Research and Protection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Searching for the external validity of social preference games: A guide of field environments based on expert perceptions

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Archaeological Research and Protection
article

Searching for the external validity of social preference games: A guide of field environments based on expert perceptions

article en

Abstract

The last couple of decades have witnessed a lively debate on the external validity of social preference games. Yet, scientific progress in this area has been restrained by the difficulty of delineating the field environments that social preference games should generalize to. Here we present three studies investigating the field environments and behaviors to which social preference games are expected to relate, according to specialist researchers. In Study 1, we systematically reviewed all the papers published in the top 5 economics journals that used social preference games, and we analyzed the field settings explicitly linked to the games by the authors. In Study 2, we used large language models to expand our analysis of the literature beyond the top 5. In Study 3, we conducted a survey among members of the Economic Science Association (ESA) mailing list to investigate the field environments they viewed as most closely associated with different social preference games. Overall, our results provide a rich guide to the types of field settings that are expected to relate to social preference games, according to the people who use them. This guide constitutes a useful reference to organize future research on external validity and make it more systematic.

Journal of Economic Behavior & OrganizationVol. 239
Fundación BBVA, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Archaeological Research and Protection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.