IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v98y2016i2p610-621..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Colson
  • Jay R. Corrigan
  • Carola Grebitus
  • Maria L. Loureiro
  • Matthew C. Rousu

Abstract

Deceptive experimental practices are banned in some professions but are standard in others. Recently, the journals of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association introduced guidelines that allow researchers to publish articles that use some forms of deception. However, in their present form, these guidelines leave room for interpretation. This situation is not ideal for researchers, and a clearer definition of which deceptive practices should be banned could be beneficial. Our aim is to help provide greater clarity and potential guidance for journal policies regarding deception by using the results of surveys of both researcher and student subjects. Evaluating ten potentially deceptive experimental techniques, we find consistent support for banning certain practices while allowing others.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:2:p:610-621.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aav067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Bart J. Wilson, 2014. "The Meaning of Deceive in Experimental Economic Science," Working Papers 14-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2006. "AJAE Appendix: Posted Prices and Bid Affiliation: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    4. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    9. 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.
    10. David R Just & Brian Wansink, 2011. "The Flat-Rate Pricing Paradox: Conflicting Effects of "“All-You-Can-Eat"” Buffet Pricing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 193-200, February.
    11. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Bonetti, Shane, 1998. "Experimental economics and deception," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 377-395, June.
    13. Corrigan, Jay R. & Depositario, Dinah Pura T. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Wu, Ximing, 2008. "AJAE Appendix for “Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Schweitzer, Maurice E & Hsee, Christopher K, 2002. "Stretching the Truth: Elastic Justification and Motivated Communication of Uncertain Information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 185-201, September.
    15. repec:ken:wpaper:0901 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control Without Deception: Individual Behaviour in Free-Riding Experiments Revisited," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(3), pages 215-240, December.
    17. Mastrobuoni, Giovanni & Peracchi, Franco & Tetenov, Aleksey, 2014. "Price as a Signal of Product Quality: Some Experimental Evidence," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 135-152, August.
    18. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    19. Lusk, Jayson L. & Pruitt, J.R. & Norwood, Bailey, 2006. "External validity of a framed field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 285-290, November.
    20. Matthew C. Rousu & Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro, 2015. "Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 524-536.
    21. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control without Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-107/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    22. Hey, John D., 1998. "Experimental economics and deception: A comment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 397-401, June.
    23. McDaniel, Tanga & Starmer, Chris, 1998. "Experimental economics and deception: A comment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 403-409, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 2-4.
    2. 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.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Just, David R., 2019. "Viewpoint: Is the ban on deception necessary or even desirable?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 5-6.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Drews, Stefan & Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2022. "Biased perceptions of other people's attitudes to carbon taxation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Jens Rommel, 2021. "Un‐nudgeable Nudgers: An Experiment on Voluntary Contribution to an Academic Network Working on the CAP. A Note," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 628-634, June.
    8. Borrello, M. & Cecchini, L. & Vecchio, R. & Caracciolo, F. & Cembalo, L. & Torquati, B., 2022. "Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Timo Goeschl & Sara Elisa Kettner & Johannes Lohse & Christiane Schwieren, 2018. "From Social Information to Social Norms: Evidence from Two Experiments on Donation Behaviour," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-25, November.
    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. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Josephson, Anna & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Fiona Thorne & John A. (Sean) Fox & Ewen Mullins & Michael Wallace, 2017. "Consumer Willingness‐to‐Pay for Genetically Modified Potatoes in Ireland: An Experimental Auction Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 43-55, January.
    17. 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.
    18. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Just, David R., 2019. "Viewpoint: Is the ban on deception necessary or even desirable?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 5-6.
    5. 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.
    6. Andreas Ortmann & Ralph Hertwig, 2002. "The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-131, October.
    7. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    8. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    9. 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.
    10. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Hans D. Steur & Jeroen Buysse & Shuyi Feng & Xavier Gellynck, 2013. "Role of Information on Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Genetically-modified Rice with Health Benefits: An Application to China," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 391-408, December.
    12. Davide Barrera & Brent Simpson, 2012. "Much Ado About Deception," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(3), pages 383-413, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Meerza, Syed Imran Ali, 2023. "The Impact of Information on Valuation in Experimental Auctions: A Comparison of Between and Within Subject Designs," OSF Preprints 3g4m5, Center for Open Science.
    17. 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).
    18. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 2-4.
    19. Dila Ikiz & R. Karina Gallardo & Amit Dhingra & Seanna Hewitt, 2018. "Assessing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for novel sliced packed fresh pears: A latent class approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 321-337, March.
    20. Ji Yong Lee & Doo Bong Han & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr & Song Soo Lim, 2011. "Valuing traceability of imported beef in Korea: an experimental auction approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 360-373, July.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:98:y:2016:i:2:p:610-621.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.