IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocec/v74y2016i1p98-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do scientists cheat? Insights from behavioral economics

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Necker

Abstract

Based on a review of the books by Wible (2014), Stephan (2012), and Lanteri and Vromen (2014), I discuss three different ways in which behavioral economics can enrich the understanding of scientific misbehavior. First, behavioral economics suggests that economic theories of scientific misbehavior, such as the one by Wible (2014), should consider moral costs of cheating, i.e. costs that arise from an individual’s desire to do the “right thing.” Second, behavioral economics demonstrates several ways in which the features of the reward scheme in science,as described by Stephan (2012), can favor cheating. Her conclusion that shirking is rarely an issue in science seems optimistic. Third, behavioral economics indicates that individual characteristics matter for cheating. According to Lanteri and Vromen (2014), economists possess different characteristics than other researchers. Hence, the reaction to incentives may differ across disciplines. Considering these insights is important to assess how a goal such as the pursuit of truth can be achieved efficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Necker, 2016. "Why do scientists cheat? Insights from behavioral economics," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 98-108, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:74:y:2016:i:1:p:98-108
    DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2016.1135604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00346764.2016.1135604
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00346764.2016.1135604?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. Dwenger, Nadja & Kleven, Henrik & Rasul, Imran & Rincke, Johannes, 2014. "Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance. Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100389, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Cadsby C. Bram & Song Fei & Tapon Francis, 2010. "Are You Paying Your Employees to Cheat? An Experimental Investigation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-32, April.
    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. Follert, Florian & Naumann, Chantal & Thieme, Lutz, 2020. "Between scientific publication and public perception: Some economic remarks on the allocation of time in science," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 34, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    2. Valérie Mignon & Marc Joëts, 2025. "Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers?," Working Papers hal-04940088, HAL.
    3. Anna Abalkina & Alexander Libman, 2020. "The real costs of plagiarism: Russian governors, plagiarized PhD theses, and infrastructure in Russian regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2793-2820, December.

    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. Leye Li & Louise Yi Lu & Dongyue Wang, 2022. "External labour market competitions and stock price crash risk: evidence from exposures to competitor CEOs’ award‐winning events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1421-1460, April.
    2. Danilov, Anastasia & Biemann, Torsten & Kring, Thorn & Sliwka, Dirk, 2013. "The dark side of team incentives: Experimental evidence on advice quality from financial service professionals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 266-272.
    3. Belot, Michèle & Schröder, Marina, 2013. "Sloppy work, lies and theft: A novel experimental design to study counterproductive behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 233-238.
    4. Koichiro ITO & Takanori IDA & Makoto TANAKA, 2015. "The Persistence of Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand," Discussion papers 15014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Berger, Melissa & Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Sausgruber, Rupert & Traxler, Christian, 2016. "Higher taxes, more evasion? Evidence from border differentials in TV license fees," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 74-86.
    6. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Verbeke, Willem, 2014. "Dynamic incentive effects of relative performance pay: A field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Martin Abraham & Kerstin Lorek & Friedemann Richter & Matthias Wrede, 2017. "Collusive tax evasion and social norms," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(2), pages 179-197, April.
    8. Timothy Besley & Anders Jensen & Torsten Persson, 2023. "Norms, Enforcement, and Tax Evasion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(4), pages 998-1007, July.
    9. Dato, Simon & Feess, Eberhard & Nieken, Petra, 2024. "Lying in competitive environments: Identifying behavioral impacts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    10. Castro, Lucio & Scartascini, Carlos, 2015. "Tax compliance and enforcement in the pampas evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 65-82.
    11. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    12. Nives Della Valle & Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Reacting to Unfairness: Group Identity and Dishonest Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, July.
    13. Benistant, Julien & Galeotti, Fabio & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2022. "Competition, information, and the erosion of morals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 148-163.
    14. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    15. Julian Jamison & Marco Hernandez & Ewa Korczyc & Nina Mazar & Roberto Sormani, 2017. "Applying Behavioral Insights to Improve Tax Collection," World Bank Publications - Reports 27528, The World Bank Group.
    16. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    17. Pierre C. Boyer & Nadja Dwenger & Johannes Rincke, 2014. "Do Taxes Crowd Out Intrinsic Motivation? Field-Experimental Evidence from Germany," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2014-23, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    18. Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Monica Singhal, 2014. "Tax Morale," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 149-168, Fall.
    19. Boosey, Luke & Goerg, Sebastian, 2020. "The timing of discretionary bonuses – effort, signals, and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 254-280.
    20. Raeni & Astika Sari, 2016. "What are the Challenges in Designing An Effective Personal Income Tax System?," Economics and Finance in Indonesia, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, vol. 62, pages 59-66, April.

    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:taf:rsocec:v:74:y:2016:i:1:p:98-108. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20 .

    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.