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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Experimental economics : a journal of the Economic Science Association 2022-04, Vol.25 (2), p.385-412
Hauptverfasser: Charness, Gary, Samek, Anya, van de Ven, Jeroen
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