Experiments are often carried out in the laboratory under artificial conditions. Although this can control for confounding factors, it may eliminate important factors that under natural conditions mediate the interaction under investigation. Here, we show that different results can be gained in the field and in the laboratory regarding host–parasite interaction. In the field, courting three-spined stickleback males, Gasterosteus aculeatus, were less often infected with plerocercoids of a cestode tapeworm, Schistocephalus solidus, than shoaling males. However, when a random sample of males was allowed to nest and court females in individual aquaria in the laboratory, both uninfected and infected males built nests and courted females. Moreover, while the few infected males that courted females in the field expressed less red nuptial coloration than uninfected courting males, there was no difference in redness between infected and uninfected males in the laboratory. We argue that the different results gained in the field and in the laboratory are due to differences in the cost of reproduction, due to differences in the resource pool of the males. The favourable conditions in the laboratory exclude factors such as predation risk, social interactions, and fluctuating environmental conditions that may use up resources in the field and mediate the effect of the parasite.