IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v83y2019icp5-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viewpoint: Is the ban on deception necessary or even desirable?

Author

Listed:
  • Just, David R.

Abstract

Deception has long been barred from the mainstream experimental economics literature based upon worries that any deception could pollute the participant pool, leading most participants to suspect that researchers are potentially lying about the incentives they face. Nonetheless, debates regarding the definition and acceptability of deception in experimental economics are common. Experimental psychologists have long employed deception as an essential part of their methodology and have studied the impacts of deception on participants in subsequent experiments. I propose the use of experimental economics to determine the impacts of deception, using empirical evidence to guide research norms and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Just, David R., 2019. "Viewpoint: Is the ban on deception necessary or even desirable?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 5-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:5-6
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218305414
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jamison, Julian & Karlan, Dean & Schechter, Laura, 2008. "To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 477-488, December.
    2. P. A. Riach & J. Rich, 2002. "Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(483), pages 480-518, November.
    3. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    4. Lewis, Geoffrey & Zalan, Tatiana, 2014. "Strategic Implications of the Relationship Between Price and Willingness to Pay: Evidence from a Wine-Tasting Experiment," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 115-134, August.
    5. Cooper, David J., 2014. "A Note on Deception in Economic Experiments," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(02), pages 111-114, August.
    6. Just, David R. & Wansink, Brian & Turvey, Calum G., 2009. "Biosecurity, Terrorism, and Food Consumption Behavior: Using Experimental Psychology to Analyze Choices Involving Fear," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Bonetti, Shane, 1998. "Experimental economics and deception," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 377-395, June.
    8. Hey, John D., 1998. "Experimental economics and deception: A comment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 397-401, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    2. Gary Charness & Anya Samek & Jeroen Ven, 2022. "What is considered deception in experimental economics?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 385-412, April.
    3. Alberti, Federica & Güth, Werner, 2013. "Studying deception without deceiving participants: An experiment of deception experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 196-204.
    4. Mecheva, Margarita de Vries & Rieger, Matthias & Sparrow, Robert & Prafiantini, Erfi & Agustina, Rina, 2021. "Snacks, nudges and asymmetric peer influence: Evidence from food choice experiments with children in Indonesia," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Kieran O’Connor & Glenn R Carroll & Balázs Kovács, 2017. "Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations of value and appeal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    7. Davide Barrera & Brent Simpson, 2012. "Much Ado About Deception," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(3), pages 383-413, August.
    8. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Römer, Ulf & Weber, Ron & Mußhoff, Oliver & Turvey, Calcum G., 2017. "Truth and consequences: Bogus pipeline experiment in informal small business lending," DARE Discussion Papers 1702, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    10. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    11. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Mohsen Javdani & Ha-Joon Chang, 2023. "Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 47(2), pages 309-339.
    13. Mathieu Lefebvre & Pierre Pestieau & Arno Riedl & Marie Villeval, 2015. "Tax evasion and social information: an experiment in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 401-425, June.
    14. Jamison, Julian & Karlan, Dean & Schechter, Laura, 2008. "To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 477-488, December.
    15. Valentina Bosetti & Francis Dennig & Ning Liu & Massimo Tavoni & Elke U. Weber, 2022. "Forward-Looking Belief Elicitation Enhances Intergenerational Beneficence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(4), pages 743-761, April.
    16. Ulf Römer & Oliver Mußhoff & Ron Weber & Calum Turvey, 2017. "Wie ehrlich sind Kunden von Mikrofinanzinstituten? Ein Bogus-Pipeline-Experiment zur Untersuchung asymmetrischer Information im Mikrofinanzsektor auf den Philippinen [How Honest are Clients of Micr," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 153-172, June.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 2-4.
    18. Krawczyk, Michał, 2019. "What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-118.
    19. Palma, Marco & Ness, Meghan & Anderson, David, 2015. "Prestige as a Determining Factor of Food Purchases," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196694, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Sarah Mörtenhuber & Andreas Nicklisch & Kai-Uwe Schnapp, 2016. "What Goes Around, Comes Around: Experimental Evidence on Exposed Lies," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:5-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.