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

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.

[1]  T. Regner,et al.  On the independence of history: experience spill-overs between experiments , 2013 .

[2]  Matteo Mameli,et al.  Deception in Psychology: Moral Costs and Benefits of Unsought Self-Knowledge , 2006, Accountability in research.

[3]  James H. Korn.  Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology , 1997 .

[4]  E. Singer,et al.  Contributions from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory: Discrimination in cutaneous sensations; Studies in sensation and judgment , 1897 .

[5]  C. Starmer,et al.  Experimental economics and deception. Commentaries. Author's reply , 1998 .

[6]  Tina Mainieri,et al.  The rise and fall of deception in social psychology and personality research, 1921 to 1994. , 1997, Ethics & behavior.

[7]  Shane Bonetti,et al.  Experimental economics and deception , 1998 .

[8]  Joan E Sieber,et al.  Deception methods in psychology: have they changed in 23 years? , 1995, Ethics & behavior.

[9]  D. Cooper.  A Note on Deception in Economic Experiments* , 2014, Journal of Wine Economics.

[10]  John A. List,et al.  Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off , 2011 .

[11]  K. Fischer,et al.  Do authorship policies impact students' judgments of perceived wrongdoing? , 1998, Ethics & behavior.

[12]  A. Gross,et al.  Twenty Years of Deception in Social Psychology , 1982 .

[13]  John D. Hey,et al.  Experimental economics and deception: A comment , 1998 .

[14]  N. Endler,et al.  The effects of subject roles, demand characteristics, and suspicion on conformity. , 1973 .

[15]  Brent Simpson,et al.  Much Ado About Deception , 2012 .

[16]  Julian C. Jamison,et al.  To Deceive or Not to Deceive: The Effect of Deception on Behavior in Future Laboratory Experiments , 2006 .

[17]  Chuck Huff,et al.  Suspicion, Affective Response, and Educational Benefit as a Result of Deception in Psychology Research , 1998 .

[18]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense , 2008 .

[19]  David J. Weiss.  Deception by researchers is necessary and not necessarily evil , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology , 2001 .

[21]  Scott M. Smith,et al.  Fundamentals of Marketing Research , 2004 .

[22]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Deception in Social Psychological Experiments: Two Misconceptions and a Research Agenda , 2008 .

[23]  Christison.  Discrimination in Cutaneous Sensations , 1897 .

[24]  P. Nelson.  Information and Consumer Behavior , 1970, Journal of Political Economy.

[25]  J. Stein,et al.  A Macroprudential Approach to Financial Regulation , 2010 .

[26]  Michal Krawczyk,et al.  Delineating deception in experimental economics: Researchers' and subjects' views , 2013 .

[27]  S. Milgram.  BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.