Behavioral economics experiments: key studies with free PDFs
Edited by Paweł Raja, PhD · Published · Updated
This page lists 20 landmark behavioral-economics experiments summarized on this site (5 field experiments and randomized trials, 12 controlled lab and online experiments, 1 survey experiment, 2 replication projects). Each entry gives the full citation, the DOI, what the study did, and a link to a free PDF where a legal copy exists (13 of 20).
Free PDFs are often the working-paper version. Cite the published version (shown with its DOI) and check page numbers against it. For effect sizes from applied field trials, see the nudge findings database; for meta-analyses and reviews, see below.
Field experiment / RCT
Save More Tomorrow™: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving
Field experiment / RCT · Temporal Choice
An empirical field experiment implemented across multiple corporate firms, tracking employees who rejected standard saving advice but accepted the 'Save More Tomorrow' program over several pay-increase cycles.
Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164-S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085
The Behavioralist as Tax Collector: Using Natural Field Experiments to Enhance Tax Compliance
Field experiment / RCT · Social Influence
Large natural field experiments with the UK tax authority, randomizing the wording of payment reminder letters—including social-norm statements ('the great majority of people pay their tax on time') and public-goods framings—across tens of thousands of taxpayers.
Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., & Vlaev, I. (2017). The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 14-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.003
Social Norms and Energy Conservation
Field experiment / RCT · Social Influence
A large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) spanning over 600,000 households across multiple utility markets in the United States, utilizing longitudinal energy billing records.
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation
Field experiment / RCT · Social Influence
Analysis of large, long-running randomized field experiments with Opower Home Energy Reports, tracking treatment effects across repeated mailings and after discontinuation to separate habit formation from ongoing prompting.
Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 104(10), 3003-3037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.10.3003
Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving
Field experiment / RCT · Social Influence
A door-to-door fundraising field experiment that randomized whether households were forewarned of a solicitation (via a flyer announcing the exact time), giving them a low-cost way to avoid the ask; a structural model recovers altruism and social-pressure parameters.
DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr050
Controlled experiment (lab or online)
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Theory + Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Risk & Loss
Subjecting participants to hypothetical choice problems involving varying levels of risk, probability, and payouts. Responses were systematically analyzed to expose departures from rational choice theory.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Market Interactions, Trust and Reciprocity
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Social Influence
Laboratory experiment in which subjects first trade in an experimental market—one where exchange is more personal and one where it is more impersonal—and then play trust games with their former trading partners, so that trust and reciprocity can be related to the history of positive and negative market dealings.
Choi, G. S., & Storr, V. H. (2020). Market interactions, trust and reciprocity. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232704
Trust, Beliefs and Cooperation: An Experiment
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Social Influence
Two-phase experiment: decisions in an initially played trust game are used to create five information environments that differ in what subjects know about the relative trust and trustworthiness of their group-mates, who then make a voluntary-contribution (public-goods) decision; first-order beliefs about group-mates' cooperativeness are elicited.
Kim, J., Putterman, L., & Zhang, X. (2019). Trust, beliefs and cooperation: An experiment (Working Paper No. 2019-3). Brown University, Department of Economics. (Revised version published as "Trust, beliefs and cooperation: Excavating a foundation of strong economies", European Economic Review, 147, 104166, 2022.)
Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Temporal Choice
Experiments in which subjects allocate a budget between an earlier and a later date across many interest rates, allowing simultaneous identification of the discount rate, present bias, and the curvature of utility.
Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3333-3356. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3333
Working Over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Temporal Choice
Subjects allocate unpleasant real-effort tasks (e.g., transcription) between an earlier and a later date, and are given opportunities to commit; choices are compared to those over monetary payments in the same design.
Augenblick, N., Niederle, M., & Sprenger, C. (2015). Working over time: Dynamic inconsistency in real effort tasks. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(3), 1067-1115. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv020
Cooperating with the Future
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Temporal Choice
A novel 'intergenerational goods game' in which each generation of players decides how much of a shared resource to extract, with the pool passing to a subsequent generation only if enough is left; the authors compare unilateral extraction with democratic (median-vote) enforcement.
Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., & Nowak, M. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature, 511(7508), 220-223. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13530
Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Belief Updating
Controlled laboratory experiments where participants received a series of information signals about an asset's value. The correlation structure of these signals was varied (ranging from fully independent to heavily overlapping).
Enke, B., & Zimmermann, F. (2019). Correlation neglect in belief formation. Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdx081
Managing Self-Confidence: Theory and Experimental Evidence
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · Belief Updating
Experiment giving subjects noisy feedback about their performance on an IQ quiz and eliciting their beliefs, so that observed updating can be compared directly to the Bayesian benchmark.
Möbius, M. M., Niederle, M., Niehaus, P., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2022). Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence. Management Science, 68(11), 7793-7817. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4294
Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function
Controlled experiment (lab or online) + Observational / administrative data · Scarcity & Well-Being
Combines lab experiments (shoppers primed to think about a hypothetical financial problem, easy vs. hard) with a natural field study of Indian sugarcane farmers tested before harvest (poor) and after harvest (relatively rich), holding the person constant.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976-980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041
Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · AI & Trust
Across five studies, participants made forecasts about real-world outcomes (e.g., student performance) and received recommendations from either a human expert or an algorithm. Some participants saw the predictors err before choosing which advisor to rely on.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · AI & Trust
Six experimental studies asking participants to make numerical estimates (e.g., predicting song popularity or weight). Advice was provided to participants with identical content but labeled as either algorithmic or human-expert.
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
Combining Human Expertise with Artificial Intelligence: Experimental Evidence from Radiology
Controlled experiment (lab or online) · AI & Trust
A randomized trial where radiologists evaluated chest X-rays. Radiologists in the treatment group were shown AI-generated probability scores of pathologies, and their diagnostic accuracy was compared to both human-alone and AI-alone baselines.
Agarwal, N., Moehring, A., Rajpurkar, P., & Salz, T. (2023). Combining human expertise with artificial intelligence: Experimental evidence from radiology. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 31422. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31422
Survey experiment
Misperceived Social Norms: Women Working Outside the Home in Saudi Arabia
Survey experiment · Social Influence
Survey experiment with young married men in Saudi Arabia measuring both their private support for women working and their beliefs about other men's support, then randomly correcting those second-order beliefs and tracking real downstream choices for their wives.
Bursztyn, L., González, A. L., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2020). Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia. American Economic Review, 110(10), 2997-3029. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180975
Replication study
Evaluating Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics
Replication study · Methods & Replication
Pre-registered high-powered replications of 18 laboratory experiments published in two leading economics journals, with replication success judged by significant effects in the same direction and by effect-size comparison.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., et al. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433-1436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0918
Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science
Replication study · Methods & Replication
A collaborative effort replicating 100 studies from three top psychology journals using high-powered, pre-registered protocols, assessing replication by statistical significance, effect size, and subjective judgment.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Meta-analyses and reviews of the evidence
- Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis (Meta-analysis)Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007↗ Source page
- Social Preferences: Fundamental Characteristics and Economic Consequences (Review)Fehr, E., & Charness, G. (2025). Social preferences: Fundamental characteristics and economic consequences. Journal of Economic Literature, 63(2), 440-514. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20241391↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future (Review)Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1577-1600. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577↗ Source page
- Structural Behavioral Economics (Review)DellaVigna, S. (2018). Structural behavioral economics. In B. D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 613-723). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.07.005↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- Behavioral Inattention (Review)Gabaix, X. (2019). Behavioral inattention. In B. D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 (Vol. 2, pp. 261-343). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.11.001↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design (Review)Madrian, B. C. (2014). Applying insights from behavioral economics to policy design. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041033↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units (Meta-analysis)DellaVigna, S., & Linos, E. (2022). RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica, 90(1), 81-116. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA18709↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- The Effectiveness of Nudging: A Meta-Analysis of Choice Architecture Interventions Across Behavioral Domains (Meta-analysis)Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. PNAS, 119(1), e2107346118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118↗ Source page
- Intertemporal Choice (Review)Ericson, K. M., & Laibson, D. (2019). Intertemporal choice. In B. D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 (Vol. 2, pp. 1-67). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.12.001↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases (Review)Benjamin, D. J. (2019). Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases. In B. D. Bernheim, S. DellaVigna, & D. Laibson (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 (Vol. 2, pp. 69-186). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.11.002↗ Free PDF (working-paper version)
- On the Psychology of Poverty (Review)Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862-867. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232491↗ Free PDF
- The Role of Theory in Field Experiments (Review)Card, D., DellaVigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2011). The role of theory in field experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.39↗ Free PDF
- Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research (Review)Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057↗ Free PDF
Where to find more free PDFs
The NBER Working Papers index lists behavioral-economics working papers with links to their PDFs on nber.org. The free copies linked on this site are hosted at: nber.org (20), docs.iza.org, econstor.eu, benjamin-enke.com, haushofer.ne.su.se, mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de, pubs.aeaweb.org, repository.upenn.edu, jennlogg.com, leeds-faculty.colorado.edu.
Frequently asked questions
Where can I find behavioral economics experiments in PDF format?
13 of the 20 experiments listed here link to a free PDF, mostly working-paper versions on nber.org or copies on the authors' or institutions' own sites. The NBER Working Papers index on this site lists 995 behavioral-economics working papers with links to their PDFs on nber.org; most are free, though NBER restricts some recent papers.
Is a free PDF the same as the published paper?
Not always. Many free PDFs are the working-paper version, which can differ from the published article in wording, results and page numbers. Cite the published version, which is shown with its DOI, and check quotations and page numbers against it.
Which of these experiments have no free PDF linked here?
Choi & Storr (2020), Hauser et al. (2014), Mani et al. (2013), Open Science Collaboration (2015) link to a source page instead, where access depends on the host (PubMed Central, for example, is free to read). Kahneman & Tversky (1979), Thaler & Benartzi (2004), Allcott (2011) are reached through their DOI only; a university library subscription usually gives access.
How were these papers checked?
DOIs and bibliographic details are checked against Crossref, and the free-PDF links come from a source-checked bibliography. Each summary describes the study's design and results as reported in the paper.
Cite this page
Raja, P. (Ed.). (2026, 19 Oct 2026). Behavioral Economics Experiments: Key Studies & Free PDFs. Behavioral Economics Lab. https://www.behavioraleconomicslab.com/behavioral-economics-experiments