“…There has indeed been extensive research on some of the complications identified by Levitt and List in the realm of social preferences, including studies on the effects of anonymity and scrutiny (Hoffman et al 1994, Hoffman, McCabe, andSmith 1996;Eckel and Grossman 1996;Dana, Cain, and Dawes 2006;Dana, Weber, and Kuang 2007;List 2007;Bardsley 2008;Franzen and Pointer 2012;Winking and Mizer 2013); the context and framing (Cherry, Frykblom, and Shogren 2002;List 2006;Branas-Garza 2007;Stoop, Noussair, and van Soest 2012;Stoop 2013); the size of the stakes (Slonim and Roth 1998;Cameron 1999;Munier and Zaharia 2003;Carpenter, Verhoogen, and Burks 2005;List and Cherry 2008); the subject pool (Gachter, Herrmann, and Thoni, 2004;List 2004List , 2006Carpenter and Seki 2005;Bellemare and Kroger 2007;Bellemare, Kroger, and van Soest, 2008;Carpenter, Connolly, and Myers 2008;Garbarino and Slonim 2009;Stoop et al 2012;Cleave, Nikiforakis, and Slonim 2013;Exadaktylos, Espin, and Branas-Garza 2013;Kessler, 2013;Stoop 2013); and the self-selection into lab experiments (Krawczyk 2011;Falk, Meier, and Zehnder 2013;Slonim et al 2013;Abeler and Nosenzo 2015). All these factors have been shown to matter, at least in some cases, which calls into question the idea that behavior in experimental social preference games can be immediately representative of social behavior outside the lab.…”