Critical Essay/Commentary
Experimental economics and deception

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00012-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Several leading experimental economists have independently proposed that deception should be proscribed on methodological grounds as an experimental technique. The basis for this prescription is the assertion that the psychological reaction to suspected manipulation jeopardises experimental control and validity, and contaminates the subject pool. According to this view, honesty is a methodological public good and deception is equivalent to not contributing. This paper reviews the literature on the consequences of the use of deception. It is concluded that there is little evidence to support the argument that deception should be proscribed. It is argued that there are potential gains from deception in data validity and experimental control. These gains are illustrated by examining ultimatum games and public good experiments.

Section snippets

The orthodoxy on deception

Several eminent experimental economists have independently proposed a simple rule to govern the conduct of experiments. Douglas Davis and Charles Holt instruct budding experimenters thus:

“The researcher should … avoid deceiving participants. Most economists are very concerned about developing and maintaining a reputation … for honesty in order to ensure that subject actions are motivated by the … monetary rewards rather than by psychological reaction to suspected manipulation. Subjects may

Evidence

It is reasonably clear that The Prohibitionists oppose deception on the ground that it causes the data produced to be invalid. That is, the argument against deception is methodological. Methodological arguments are notoriously difficult to assess or rebut. It must be admitted that the assertions of The Prohibitionists are at least plausible or logically possible.

Psychologists have been experimenting with human subjects for more than a century, and have subjected the practice of experimental

Why deceive?

This brief review of the available evidence reveals that the concerns which The Prohibitionists express about the use of deception in experiments are exaggerated. Data supportive of The Prohibitionist view are rare, and the balance of the evidence is certainly to the contrary. Deceiving experimental subjects seems unlikely to bring experimental economists into disrepute. It is unlikely to taint the behaviour of experimental subjects. However, this does not establish the need for deception, or

Summary and conclusions

The experimental evidence directly undercuts the basis of attempts to proscribe deception. The implications of that evidence can be summarised briefly. Deception and the suspicion of deception do not generally or necessarily alter subject behaviour. Deception does not appear to “jeopardize future experiments” or “contaminate a subject pool”. It does not mean that “we have lost control”. Nor does it “taint” experiments or cause the data they produce to be invalid. Indeed, there is good reason to

Unlinked References

Burke et al., 1988

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their comments, and to Alan Lewis, Friedel Bolle and Peter Lunt for their kind help.

References (98)

  • Asch, S.E., 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgement. In: Guetzkow, H. (Ed.),...
  • S.E Asch

    Opinions and social pressure

    Scientific American

    (1955)
  • D Baumrind

    Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited

    American Psychologist

    (1985)
  • B.C Beins

    Using the Barnum effect to teach about ethics and deception in research

    Teaching of Psychology

    (1993)
  • K Binmore et al.

    Testing noncooperative bargaining theory: A preliminary study

    American Economic Review

    (1985)
  • L.W Brandt

    Don't sweep the ethical problems under the rug – Totalitarian versus equalitarian ethics

    Canadian Psychological Review

    (1978)
  • R.R Burke et al.

    Deception by implication: An experimental investigation

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (1988)
  • A Chipman

    Conformity as a differential function of social pressure and judgement difficulty

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (1966)
  • L Christensen

    The negative subject: Myth, reality, or a prior experimental experience effect?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1977)
  • L Christensen

    Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1988)
  • F.L Collins et al.

    Variables affecting subjects' ethical ratings of proposed experiments

    Psychological Reports

    (1979)
  • Crano, W.D., Brewer, M.B., 1973. Principles of Research in Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill,...
  • Davis, D.D., Holt, C.A., 1992. Experimental Economics. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,...
  • P.J Dunston et al.

    Deception in psychological research: A continuing problem

    Perceptual and Motor Skills

    (1986)
  • M.S Eisner

    Ethical problems in social psychological experimentation in the laboratory

    Canadian Psychological Review

    (1977)
  • S Fillenbaum

    Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance: The `faithful' subject

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1966)
  • P.D Finney

    When consent information refers to risk and deception: Implications for social research

    Journal of Social Behavior and Personality

    (1987)
  • M.F Flanagan

    Role playing: An alternative to deception? A review of the issue

    American Psychologist

    (1973)
  • B.R Flay et al.

    Artifact in social psychological research: The subject's view

    New Zealand Psychologist

    (1977)
  • J Forward et al.

    Role-enactment and deception methodologies? Alternative paradigms?

    American Psychologist

    (1976)
  • J.D Foster et al.

    Christian anti-psychology and the scientific method

    Journal of Psychology and Theology

    (1987)
  • R.H Frank et al.

    Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?

    Journal of Economic Perspectives

    (1993)
  • E.P Gerdes

    College students' reactions to social psychological experiments involving deception

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (1979)
  • D.R Glasgow et al.

    The project must count: Fostering positive attitudes toward the conduct of research

    Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

    (1977)
  • J.D Greenwood

    Role-playing as an experimental strategy in social psychology

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (1983)
  • A.E Gross et al.

    Twenty years of deception in social psychology

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1982)
  • C.L Gruder et al.

    Improvement in experimental performance as a result of debriefing about deception

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1977)
  • C Hendrick

    Role-playing as a methodology for social research: A symposium

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1977)
  • Hey, J.D., 1991. Experiments in Economics. Basil Blackwell,...
  • M.T Hynan

    Aggression in a competitive task

    Psychological Reports

    (1982)
  • R.M Isaac et al.

    Public goods provision in an experimental environment

    Journal of Public Economics

    (1985)
  • R.M Isaac et al.

    Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contribution mechanism

    Quarterly Journal of Economics

    (1988)
  • Jones, E.E., Gerard, H.B., 1967. Foundations of Social Psychology. Wiley, New...
  • Jung, J., 1971. The Experimenter's Dilemma. Harper & Row, New...
  • H.C Kelman

    Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1967)
  • J.H Korn

    Judgments of acceptability of deception in psychological research

    Journal of General Psychology

    (1987)
  • R.O Kroger et al.

    Needed: Radical surgery

    American Psychologist

    (1986)
  • E Krupat

    A re-assessment of role playing as a technique in social psychology

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1977)
  • E Krupat et al.

    Subjects' expectations and the search for alternatives to deception in social psychology

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (1994)

    • Cited by (0)

    1

    Tel.: 01334 462420; fax: 01344 462444; e-mail: [email protected].

    View full text
    Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.