IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v37y2015i3p524-536..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew C. Rousu
  • Gregory Colson
  • Jay R. Corrigan
  • Carola Grebitus
  • Maria L. Loureiro

Abstract

Many applied economics journals ban the use of deception in experiments, which contrasts with the policies in other academic disciplines. We examine the cases for and against deception, and describe the ways deception can be employed in applied economics experiments. We create a general ranking of harms from deception in experiments and present evidence from a survey (conducted in summer 2014) of agricultural and applied economists eliciting attitudes towards ten different deceptive practices. Survey respondents view inflicting physical or psychological harm on participants and not making promised payments as the most severe forms of deception. Less severe forms of deception include providing participants with incomplete product information and conducting an experiment using participants who are not aware they are part of an experiment. Finally, we provide recommendations for policies addressing deception in experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew C. Rousu & Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro, 2015. "Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 524-536.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:37:y:2015:i:3:p:524-536.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppv002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    2. Michał Krawczyk, 2013. "Delineating deception in experimental economics: Researchers' and subjects' views," Working Papers 2013-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 2-4.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Borrello, M. & Cecchini, L. & Vecchio, R. & Caracciolo, F. & Cembalo, L. & Torquati, B., 2022. "Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    5. D’Amato, Alessio & Goeschl, Timo & Lorè, Luisa & Zoli, Mariangela, 2023. "True to type? EU-style date marking and the valuation of perishable food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Britwum, Kofi & Bernard, John C., 2018. "A field experiment on consumer willingness to accept milk that may have come from cloned cows," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    8. Josephson, Anna & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Sean F. Ellis & Olesya M. Savchenko & Kent D. Messer, 2022. "Mitigating stigma associated with recycled water," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(3), pages 1077-1099, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.

    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. Goda, Gopi Shah & Manchester, Colleen Flaherty & Sojourner, Aaron J., 2014. "What will my account really be worth? Experimental evidence on how retirement income projections affect saving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 80-92.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials [Microcredit impacts: Evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    4. Gionata Castaldi & Grazia Cecere & Mariangela Zoli, 2021. "“Smoke on the beach”: on the use of economic vs behavioral policies to reduce environmental pollution by cigarette littering," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1025-1048, October.
    5. Bronchetti, Erin Todd & Huffman, David B. & Magenheim, Ellen, 2015. "Attention, intentions, and follow-through in preventive health behavior: Field experimental evidence on flu vaccination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-291.
    6. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    7. Fabio Galeotti & Valeria Maggian & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Fraud Deterrence Institutions Reduce Intrinsic Honesty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2508-2528.
    8. Biddle, Nicholas & Fels, Katja M. & Sinning, Mathias, 2018. "Behavioral insights on business taxation: Evidence from two natural field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 30-49.
    9. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Ziegler, Andreas, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences and the individual change to alternative electricity contracts," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Jasmijn Bol & Lisa Laviers & Jason Sandvik, 2023. "Creativity Contests: An Experimental Investigation of Eliciting Employee Creativity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 47-94, March.
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    13. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    15. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    16. Carroll, Kathryn A. & Samek, Anya, 2018. "Field experiments on food choice in grocery stores: A ‘how-to’ guide," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 331-340.
    17. Eugen Dimant & Tobias Gesche, 2021. "Nudging Enforcers: How Norm Perceptions and Motives for Lying Shape Sanctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9385, CESifo.
    18. Caroline Graham Austin & Agnieszka Kwapisz, 2017. "The Road to Unintended Consequences Is Paved with Motivational Apps," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 463-477, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Astrid Dannenberg & Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Heike Wetzel, 2022. "Status for the good guys: An experiment on charitable giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 721-740, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:apecpp:v:37:y:2015:i:3:p:524-536.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.