IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levrem/321307000000000120.html

Deception and Misreporting in a Social Program

Author

Listed:
  • César Martinelli
  • Susan W. Parker

Abstract

We investigate empirically the extent of misreporting in a poverty alleviation program in which self-reported information, followed by a household visit, is used to determine eligibility. In the model we propose and estimate, underreporting may be due to a deception motive, and overreporting to an embarrassment motive. We find that underreporting of goods and desirable home characteristics is widespread, and that overreporting is common with respect to goods linked to social status. Larger program benefits encourage underreporting and discourage overreporting. We also estimate the costs of lying and embarrassment for different goods, and show that the embarrassment cost for lacking a good is proportional to the percentage of households who own the good. (JEL: D01, I32, I38, C25) (c) 2009 by the European Economic Association.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • César Martinelli & Susan W. Parker, 2006. "Deception and Misreporting in a Social Program," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000120, UCLA Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cla:levrem:321307000000000120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ciep.itam.mx/~martinel/lies4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    2. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    3. Janet Currie, 2004. "The Take Up of Social Benefits," NBER Working Papers 10488, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Regina T. Riphahn, 2001. "Rational Poverty or Poor Rationality? The Take‐up of Social Assistance Benefits," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 47(3), pages 379-398, September.
    5. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    6. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Agar Brugiavini, 2001. "Risk Pooling, Precautionary Saving and Consumption Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(4), pages 757-779.
    7. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 57, pages 509-519, Elsevier.
    8. Kartik, Navin & Ottaviani, Marco & Squintani, Francesco, 2007. "Credulity, lies, and costly talk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 93-116, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Beaurain, Guillaume & Masclet, David, 2016. "Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 350-362.
    2. Siqi Ma & Li Hao & John A. Aloysius, 2021. "Women are an Advantage in Supply Chain Collaboration and Efficiency," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(5), pages 1427-1441, May.
    3. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Cruickshank, Amy & Sbai, Erwann, 2015. "Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-32.
    4. Comeig, Irene & Holt, Charles & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa, 2022. "Upside versus downside risk: Gender, stakes, and skewness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 21-30.
    5. Selim Jürgen Ergun & Teresa García-Muñoz & M.Fernanda Rivas, 2010. "Gender Differences in Economic Experiments," ThE Papers 10/14, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    6. Thomas Buser & Louis Putterman & Joël van der Weele, 2016. "Gender and Redistribution: Experimental Evidence," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-063/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas & Wallmeier, Niklas, 2015. "Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 25-29.
    8. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Boys will still be boys: Gender differences in trading activity are not due to differences in (over)confidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 100-120.
    9. Lovász, Anna & Cukrowska-Torzewska, Ewa & Rigó, Mariann & Szabó-Morvai, Ágnes, 2022. "Gender differences in the effect of subjective feedback in an online game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Friehe, Tim & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2017. "Self-control and crime revisited: Disentangling the effect of self-control on risk taking and antisocial behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 23-32.
    11. Buser, Thomas & Grimalda, Gianluca & Putterman, Louis & van der Weele, Joël, 2020. "Overconfidence and gender gaps in redistributive preferences: Cross-Country experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 267-286.
    12. Chris Ryan, 2016. "The Attitudes of Boys and Girls towards Science and Mathematics as They Progress through School in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2016n24, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    13. Sanjiv Erat & Uri Gneezy, 2012. "White Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 723-733, April.
    14. Bodenschatz, Anja & Walkowitz, Gari, 2025. "Slipping on stereotypes – Interactive gender effects in the erosion of ethical behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "Sex Hormones and Choice under Risk," Working Papers 127, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Graeme Pearce, 2021. "Understanding the Link between Intelligence and Lying," CESifo Working Paper Series 9223, CESifo.
    17. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2015. "Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 249-266, February.
    18. Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Are Women More Attracted to Co‐operation Than Men?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 115-140, February.
    19. Diego Aycinena & Rimvydas Baltaduonis & Lucas Rentschler, 2014. "Risk Preferences and Prenatal Exposure to Sex Hormones for Ladinos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    20. Yan Chen & Ming Jiang & Erin L. Krupka, 2019. "Hunger and the gender gap," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 885-917, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cla:levrem:321307000000000120. 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: David K. Levine (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.dklevine.com/ .

    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.