Abstrakt
Experimental research findings suffer from critique of opponents, whether the behavior inside laboratory is a good approximation of the real world development. As frequently argued, parallelism contributes towards smoother generalization of results to non- laboratory settings and across populations.
This paper aims to tackle selected methodological issues related to validity of experiments and evaluate common conjectures about the sharp dichotomy between experimental data and data from the field. Attention is primarily devoted to the use of monetary incentives within experiment, which is believed to control incentives, but which might under certain circumstances affect substantially external validity of an experiment.
Specifically, delineation of experiment in terms of choice architecture might trigger certain behavioral features. As a result, monetary incentives may crowd out intrinsic motivation of experimental subjects.