What is considered deception in experimental economics?
In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false information is not permitted, there are also “gray areas” with respect to practices that omit information or are misleading wit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association 2022-04, Vol.25 (2), p.385-412 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 412 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 385 |
container_title | Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Charness, Gary Samek, Anya van de Ven, Jeroen |
description | In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false information is not permitted, there are also “gray areas” with respect to practices that omit information or are misleading without an explicit lie being told. In this paper, we report the results of a large survey among experimental economists and students concerning various specific gray areas. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity across respondent choices. The data indicate a perception that costs and benefits matter, so that such practices might in fact be appropriate when the topic is important and there is no other way to gather data. Compared to researchers, students have different attitudes about some of the methods in the specific scenarios that we ask about. Few students express awareness of the no-deception policy at their schools. We also briefly discuss some potential alternatives to “gray-area” deception, primarily based on suggestions offered by respondents. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2640563511</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2640563511</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-ccf5364792115d5b6eb3442685f93a3e25b18930afa1372fabd3349ad7965dff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsv4CrgOprk5meyEilahYIbxWXIzCSa0s6MyRT07U0doTtXCbnfOefmIHTJ6DWjVN9kRlUFhHJGqNFcEX2EZkxqIMpAdVzuUCkiysspOst5TSljUokZ0m8fbsQx46bvcmx98i1ufeOHMfYdjh32X4NPceu70W2wL1S_jU2-PUcnwW2yv_g75-j14f5l8UhWz8unxd2KNJKZkTRNkKCENrzktbJWvgYhuKpkMODAc1mzygB1wTHQPLi6BRDGtdoo2YYAc3Q1-Q6p_9z5PNp1v0tdibRcCSoVSMYKxSeqSX3OyQc7lJ1d-raM2n1BdirIloLsb0FWFxGeRPtfxXyQVJRCpZkSBYEJyWXYvft0SP_H-AdJiHH1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2640563511</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What is considered deception in experimental economics?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Charness, Gary ; Samek, Anya ; van de Ven, Jeroen</creator><creatorcontrib>Charness, Gary ; Samek, Anya ; van de Ven, Jeroen</creatorcontrib><description>In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false information is not permitted, there are also “gray areas” with respect to practices that omit information or are misleading without an explicit lie being told. In this paper, we report the results of a large survey among experimental economists and students concerning various specific gray areas. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity across respondent choices. The data indicate a perception that costs and benefits matter, so that such practices might in fact be appropriate when the topic is important and there is no other way to gather data. Compared to researchers, students have different attitudes about some of the methods in the specific scenarios that we ask about. Few students express awareness of the no-deception policy at their schools. We also briefly discuss some potential alternatives to “gray-area” deception, primarily based on suggestions offered by respondents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-4157</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-6938</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral/Experimental Economics ; Deception ; Economic theory ; Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods ; Economics ; Economics and Finance ; Experimental economics ; Experimental methods ; Game Theory ; Microeconomics ; Operations Research/Decision Theory ; Original Paper ; Social and Behav. Sciences</subject><ispartof>Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association, 2022-04, Vol.25 (2), p.385-412</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-ccf5364792115d5b6eb3442685f93a3e25b18930afa1372fabd3349ad7965dff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-ccf5364792115d5b6eb3442685f93a3e25b18930afa1372fabd3349ad7965dff3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0908-3079</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Charness, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samek, Anya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van de Ven, Jeroen</creatorcontrib><title>What is considered deception in experimental economics?</title><title>Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association</title><addtitle>Exp Econ</addtitle><description>In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false information is not permitted, there are also “gray areas” with respect to practices that omit information or are misleading without an explicit lie being told. In this paper, we report the results of a large survey among experimental economists and students concerning various specific gray areas. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity across respondent choices. The data indicate a perception that costs and benefits matter, so that such practices might in fact be appropriate when the topic is important and there is no other way to gather data. Compared to researchers, students have different attitudes about some of the methods in the specific scenarios that we ask about. Few students express awareness of the no-deception policy at their schools. We also briefly discuss some potential alternatives to “gray-area” deception, primarily based on suggestions offered by respondents.</description><subject>Behavioral/Experimental Economics</subject><subject>Deception</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economics and Finance</subject><subject>Experimental economics</subject><subject>Experimental methods</subject><subject>Game Theory</subject><subject>Microeconomics</subject><subject>Operations Research/Decision Theory</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Social and Behav. Sciences</subject><issn>1386-4157</issn><issn>1573-6938</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsv4CrgOprk5meyEilahYIbxWXIzCSa0s6MyRT07U0doTtXCbnfOefmIHTJ6DWjVN9kRlUFhHJGqNFcEX2EZkxqIMpAdVzuUCkiysspOst5TSljUokZ0m8fbsQx46bvcmx98i1ufeOHMfYdjh32X4NPceu70W2wL1S_jU2-PUcnwW2yv_g75-j14f5l8UhWz8unxd2KNJKZkTRNkKCENrzktbJWvgYhuKpkMODAc1mzygB1wTHQPLi6BRDGtdoo2YYAc3Q1-Q6p_9z5PNp1v0tdibRcCSoVSMYKxSeqSX3OyQc7lJ1d-raM2n1BdirIloLsb0FWFxGeRPtfxXyQVJRCpZkSBYEJyWXYvft0SP_H-AdJiHH1</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Charness, Gary</creator><creator>Samek, Anya</creator><creator>van de Ven, Jeroen</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-3079</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>What is considered deception in experimental economics?</title><author>Charness, Gary ; Samek, Anya ; van de Ven, Jeroen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-ccf5364792115d5b6eb3442685f93a3e25b18930afa1372fabd3349ad7965dff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Behavioral/Experimental Economics</topic><topic>Deception</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economics and Finance</topic><topic>Experimental economics</topic><topic>Experimental methods</topic><topic>Game Theory</topic><topic>Microeconomics</topic><topic>Operations Research/Decision Theory</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Social and Behav. Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Charness, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samek, Anya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van de Ven, Jeroen</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Charness, Gary</au><au>Samek, Anya</au><au>van de Ven, Jeroen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What is considered deception in experimental economics?</atitle><jtitle>Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association</jtitle><stitle>Exp Econ</stitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>385</spage><epage>412</epage><pages>385-412</pages><issn>1386-4157</issn><eissn>1573-6938</eissn><abstract>In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false information is not permitted, there are also “gray areas” with respect to practices that omit information or are misleading without an explicit lie being told. In this paper, we report the results of a large survey among experimental economists and students concerning various specific gray areas. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity across respondent choices. The data indicate a perception that costs and benefits matter, so that such practices might in fact be appropriate when the topic is important and there is no other way to gather data. Compared to researchers, students have different attitudes about some of the methods in the specific scenarios that we ask about. Few students express awareness of the no-deception policy at their schools. We also briefly discuss some potential alternatives to “gray-area” deception, primarily based on suggestions offered by respondents.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7</doi><tpages>28</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-3079</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1386-4157 |
ispartof | Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association, 2022-04, Vol.25 (2), p.385-412 |
issn | 1386-4157 1573-6938 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2640563511 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Behavioral/Experimental Economics Deception Economic theory Economic Theory/Quantitative Economics/Mathematical Methods Economics Economics and Finance Experimental economics Experimental methods Game Theory Microeconomics Operations Research/Decision Theory Original Paper Social and Behav. Sciences |
title | What is considered deception in experimental economics? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T03%3A27%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20is%20considered%20deception%20in%20experimental%20economics?&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20economics%20:%20a%20journal%20of%20the%20Economic%20Science%20Association&rft.au=Charness,%20Gary&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=385&rft.epage=412&rft.pages=385-412&rft.issn=1386-4157&rft.eissn=1573-6938&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10683-021-09726-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2640563511%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2640563511&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |