IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1751.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Video Recordings in Experiments – Are There Effects on Self-Selection or the Outcome of the Experiment?

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Lohse
  • Salmai Qari

Abstract

The use of video recordings in experimental economics has become increasingly popular. However, little attention is paid to how this might affect the composition of the participating subjects and the intended treatment effect. We make a first attempt to shed light on these issues and address them in an incentivized face-to-face tax compliance experiment. The experiment contains two dimensions; i) the level of the fine for non-compliance; and ii) the presence of a recording video camera. The 2x2 design frees the intended treatment effect of the fine from any effect resulting from the announced use of a camera. Our findings point in the direction that neither gender nor personality traits nor other individual characteristics seem to have the explanatory power to predict participation in sessions’ with or without a camera, respectively. Most importantly, the presence of a recording video camera does not affect subjects’ observed decision behavior in the actual experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2018. "Video Recordings in Experiments – Are There Effects on Self-Selection or the Outcome of the Experiment?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1751, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.596079.de/dp1751.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benno Torgler, 2002. "Speaking to Theorists and Searching for Facts: Tax Morale and Tax Compliance in Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 657-683, December.
    2. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    3. Jeannette Brosig & Joachim Weimann & Axel Ockenfels, 2003. "The Effect of Communication Media on Cooperation," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(2), pages 217-241, May.
    4. Belot, Michele & Duch, Raymond & Miller, Luis, 2015. "A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 26-33.
    5. 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.
    6. Carsten Schmidt & Ro'i Zultan, 2005. "The Uncontrolled Social Utility Hypothesis Revisited," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(33), pages 1-7.
    7. Konrad, Kai A. & Lohse, Tim & Qari, Salmai, 2014. "Deception choice and self-selection – The importance of being earnest," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 25-39.
    8. Zeileis, Achim, 2004. "Econometric Computing with HC and HAC Covariance Matrix Estimators," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 11(i10).
    9. Alm, James & Jackson, Betty & McKee, Michael J., 1992. "Estimating the Determinants of Taxpayer Compliance with Experimental Data," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 45(1), pages 107-14, March.
    10. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    11. Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans Winden, 2006. "Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 35-51, April.
    12. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    13. Zeileis, Achim, 2006. "Object-oriented Computation of Sandwich Estimators," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 16(i09).
    14. Alm, James & Jackson, Betty & McKee, Michael J., 1992. "Estimating the Determinants of Taxpayer Compliance With Experimental Data," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 45(1), pages 107-114, March.
    15. Torgler, Benno, 2002. "Speaking to Theorists and Searching for Facts: Tax Morale and Tax Compliance in Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 657-683, December.
    16. Ivo Bischoff & Björn Frank, 2011. "Good news for experimenters: Subjects are hard to influence by instructorsʹ cues," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3221-3225.
    17. 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.
    18. Choo, C.Y. Lawrence & Fonseca, Miguel A. & Myles, Gareth D., 2016. "Do students behave like real taxpayers in the lab? Evidence from a real effort tax compliance experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 102-114.
    19. Ayelet Gneezy & Uri Gneezy & Joan Llull & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2016. "Expectations, Satisfaction, and Utility from Experience Goods: A Field Experiment in Theaters," Working Papers 944, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Lohse, Tim & Dwenger, Nadja, 2016. "Do Individuals Put Effort into Lying? Evidence From a Compliance Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145616, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    21. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Li, Zhu-Yu & Yang, Chaoliang, 2008. "Why people reject advantageous offers--Non-monotonic strategies in ultimatum bargaining: Evaluating a video experiment run in PR China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 373-384, February.
    22. Kai A. Konrad & Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2017. "Compliance with Endogenous Audit Probabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 821-850, July.
    23. Belot, Michèle & Bhaskar, V. & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2010. "Promises and cooperation: Evidence from a TV game show," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 396-405, March.
    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. Lohse, Tim & Qari, Salmai, 2021. "Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 1-15.

    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. Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2018. "Video recordings in experiments – Are there effects on self-selection or the outcome of the experiment?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1381-1394.
    2. Greiner, Ben & Caravella, Mary & Roth, Alvin E., 2014. "Is avatar-to-avatar communication as effective as face-to-face communication? An Ultimatum Game experiment in First and Second Life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 374-382.
    3. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    4. Lana Friesen, 2012. "Certainty of Punishment versus Severity of Punishment: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 399-421, October.
    5. Alice Guerra & Brooke Harrington, 2023. "Regional variation in tax compliance and the role of culture," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 40(1), pages 139-152, April.
    6. Sandro Casal & Veronika Grimm & Simeon Schächtele, 2019. "Taxation with Mobile High-Income Agents: Experimental Evidence on Tax Compliance and Equity Perceptions," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, October.
    7. Grundmann, Susanna & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2017. "How income and tax rates provoke cheating – An experimental investigation of tax morale," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 27-42.
    8. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    10. Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2007. "Tax evasion and social interactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2089-2112, December.
    11. Kirchler, Erich & Wahl, Ingrid, 2010. "Tax compliance inventory TAX-I: Designing an inventory for surveys of tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 331-346, June.
    12. Bayer, Ralph-C & Sutter, Matthias, 2009. "The excess burden of tax evasion--An experimental detection-concealment contest," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 527-543, July.
    13. Ethan LaMothe & Donna Bobek, 2020. "Are Individuals More Willing to Lie to a Computer or a Human? Evidence from a Tax Compliance Setting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 157-180, November.
    14. Batrancea, Larissa M. & Kudła, Janusz & Błaszczak, Barbara & Kopyt, Mateusz, 2022. "Differences in tax evasion attitudes between students and entrepreneurs under the slippery slope framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 464-482.
    15. Martin Halla & Friedrich G. Schneider, 2005. "Taxes and Benefits: Two Distinct Options to Cheat on the State?," Economics working papers 2005-05, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    16. Kastlunger, Barbara & Kirchler, Erich & Mittone, Luigi & Pitters, Julia, 2009. "Sequences of audits, tax compliance, and taxpaying strategies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 405-418, June.
    17. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Antoine Malézieux & Jason Shogren, 2016. "Is tax evasion a personality trait ? An empirical evaluation of psychological determinants of "tax morale" [L'évasion fiscale est-elle un trait de personnalité ? Une évaluation empirique ," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01476519, HAL.
    18. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A., 2021. "Compliance in teams – Implications of joint decisions and shared consequences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Iskandar, Deden Dinar & Wuenscher, Tobias & Badhuri, Anik, 2012. "The Determinants of Compliance on Environmental Tax: The Insights of Theoretical and Experimental Approaches Motivated by the Case of Indonesia," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 134977, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Laboratory experiments; subject pools; convenience samples; video recordings; face-to-face interaction; tax compliance; cheating;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1751. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.