Experimenting with Fish has some Advantages

As I sat through the morning session of the Implications of Behavioral Economics for Economic Policy I was struck by the interesting presentations as well as the insightful spectator remarks. One particularly astute gentlemen sitting directly at my side made several penetrating comments. One comment related to how one should use experimental methods in economics. He noted that there are distinct advantages in conducting experiments with humans rather than fish, for example, since we can ask humans how they came to their choice and probe into their interpretations of the situation. Of course, this is a valid point. The biologist studying animal behavior has no idea what it feels like to be a goldfish when the water temperature suddenly changes from 74° Fahrenheit to 80° Fahreneheit, and the fish might find it difficult to relay that information. Likewise, the chemist has little idea what it feels like to be Uranium 239 when it turns into Neptunium. Experimental economists are potentially in a more fortunate situation. We are able to study the behavior of people, where we can experience the situations ourselves and ask our experimental subjects about their own experiences. At the heart of the burgeoning literature studying fairness in labor markets is experimental evidence of just such kind. The literature has produced an impressive array of experimental treatments that provide data that have been interpreted as providing strong evidence that many agents behave in a reciprocal manner even when the behavior is costly and yields neither present nor future material rewards (see, e.