What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects

•I develop a typology of deceptive techniques in experimental economics.•I verify it in a survey of experimental subjects and of researchers.•The typology seems to be a good predictor of responders’ ratings of different techniques.•Still, the ratings vary greatly, showing that attempts to define dec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of behavioral and experimental economics Vol. 79; pp. 110 - 118
Main Author Krawczyk, Michał
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier Inc 01.04.2019
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2214-8043
2214-8051
DOI10.1016/j.socec.2019.01.008

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:•I develop a typology of deceptive techniques in experimental economics.•I verify it in a survey of experimental subjects and of researchers.•The typology seems to be a good predictor of responders’ ratings of different techniques.•Still, the ratings vary greatly, showing that attempts to define deception generate a vast grey area. I report the results of a large survey of experimental subjects and researchers concerning the use of deception. While both groups are highly heterogeneous in their evaluation of various design techniques, they tend to order them in a rather similar way. While the attitude towards deception among subjects tends to be more favorable than among researchers, even the latter do not readily conform with the common view that deception is never accepted in experimental economics. I propose a working definition and typology of deceptive techniques and find that they correctly organize the survey data. I conclude with some policy recommendations.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:2214-8043
2214-8051
DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2019.01.008