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

• Published in: Journal of behavioral and experimental economics Vol. 79; pp. 110 - 118
• Main Author: Krawczyk, Michał
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Inc 01.04.2019; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Behavioral economics; Deception; Experimental methodology; Heterogeneity; Polls & surveys; Research methodology; Researcher subject relations; Researchers; Typological analysis; Typology; Experimental methodology; Deception; C90
• ISSN: 2214-8043; 2214-8051
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.01.008

•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.