IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v55y2015icp103-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Trust me, I am an economist.” A note on suspiciousness in laboratory experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Krawczyk, Michal

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of informing subjects that no deception will be used in a laboratory experiment. When implemented as a part of recruitment procedure, this information makes no difference in participants’ suspiciousness. Conversely, no-deception reminders placed in the instructions substantially reduce self-reported suspiciousness but not actual (trust-dependent) behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Krawczyk, Michal, 2015. "“Trust me, I am an economist.” A note on suspiciousness in laboratory experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 103-107.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:103-107
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2014.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804314001244
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2014.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Ortmann & Ralph Hertwig, 2002. "The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-131, October.
    2. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Elisabet Rutström, E., 2009. "Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 498-507, June.
    3. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00694, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Michał Krawczyk, 2013. "Delineating deception in experimental economics: Researchers' and subjects' views," Working Papers 2013-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 482-489, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gylfason, Haukur Freyr & Olafsdottir, Katrin, 2017. "Does Gneezy's cheap talk game measure trust?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 143-148.
    2. Gary Charness & Anya Samek & Jeroen Ven, 2022. "What is considered deception in experimental economics?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 385-412, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    2. Jonathan Schulz & Uwe Sunde & Petra Thiemann & Christian Thoeni, 2019. "Selection into Experiments: Evidence from a Population of Students," Discussion Papers 2019-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Thiemann, Petra & Schulz, Jonathan & Sunde, Uwe & Thöni, Christian, 2022. "Selection into experiments: New evidence on the role of preferences, cognition, and recruitment protocols," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    4. Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2020. "Self-selection bias in a field experiment: Recruiting subjects under different payment schemes," Working Papers 2020/13, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    5. Frijters, Paul & Kong, Tao Sherry & Liu, Elaine M., 2015. "Who is coming to the artefactual field experiment? Participation bias among Chinese rural migrants," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 62-74.
    6. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    7. Tan, Hwee Cheng, 2019. "Using a structured collaborative learning approach in a case-based management accounting course," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Astrid Matthey & Tobias Regner, 2013. "On the independence of history: experience spill-overs between experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 403-419, September.
    9. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    10. Thomas Epper & Julien Senn & Ernst Fehr, 2023. "Social preferences across subject pools: students vs. general population," ECON - Working Papers 435, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2024.
    11. Ori Weisel & Ro'i Zultan, 2013. "Social motives in intergroup conflict," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-033, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    13. Krawczyk, Michał, 2019. "What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-118.
    14. Weisel, Ori & Zultan, Ro׳i, 2016. "Social motives in intergroup conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 122-133.
    15. Schmidt, Robert & Schwieren, Christiane & Sproten, Alec N., 2020. "Norms in the lab: Inexperienced versus experienced participants," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 239-255.
    16. Mongoljin Batsaikhan, 2017. "Trust, Trustworthiness, And Business Success: Lab And Field Findings From Entrepreneurs," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 368-382, January.
    17. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen & Garbarino, Ellen & Merrett, Danielle, 2013. "Opting-in: Participation bias in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 43-70.
    18. Matteo Migheli, 2012. "Socialisation, Trust and Reciprocity among Young People," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 148(I), pages 77-95, March.
    19. Noemí Herranz‐Zarzoso & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Gerardo Sabater‐Grande, 2022. "Self‐selection bias in a field experiment: Recruiting subjects under different payment schemes," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 421-426, April.
    20. Schmidt, Robert J. & Schwieren, Christiane & Sproten, Alec N., 2019. "Norms in the lab: Inexperienced versus experienced participants," Working Papers 0666, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:103-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.