The importance of being honest? Evidence that deception may not pollute social science subject pools after all
Deceiving participants about the goals or content of a study is permitted in psychological research but is largely banned in economics journals and subject pools. This ban is intended to protect a public good: If experiencing deception causes participants to be suspicious in future studies, and suspicion meaningfully influences their behavior, then the entire field suffers. We report a survey of psychologists’ and economists’ attitudes toward deception (N = 568) and a large, nondeceptive multisite study in which we measured participants’ histories, suspicion levels, and behavior in four common economic tasks (N = 636). Economists reported more negative attitudes toward deceptive methods and greater support for the deception ban than did psychologists. The results of the behavioral study, however, do not support the “public good” argument for banning deception about the goals or content of a research study: Participants’ present suspicion was not clearly related to past experiences of deception, and there were no consistent behavioral differences between suspicious and credulous participants. We discuss the implications of these results for the ongoing debate regarding the acceptability of deceptive research methods.
KeywordsResearch methods Deception Economics Psychology
We thank Nina Cohodes and the staff of the Harvard Decision Science Laboratory for coordinating the economics pool data collection at Harvard, Gary Charness for coordinating the use of the Experimental and Behavioral Economics Laboratory and the corresponding subject pool at UCSB, Patrick Mair for statistical consultation, and Alena A. Egner, Erin Mernoff, Carolyn Killea, Sierra Fan, Nwanneka Okwelogu, and KeeHup Yong for additional research assistance.
Open Practices Statement
The data for the experiments reported here are available online (https://osf.io/f3kzr), the materials are available by request to the corresponding author, and none of the experiments were preregistered.
M.M.K. conceived of the experimental study and designed it with R.M.H. R.M.H. wrote code for the data acquisition. R.M.H. collected data at Harvard University and on Amazon Mechanical Turk; A.B.E. collected data at the University of California, Santa Barbara. R.M.H. and M.M.K. conceived and designed the survey study. M.M.K. and A.B.E. conducted the data analysis. All the authors wrote the manuscript and approved of the final version for publication.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Colson, G., Corrigan, J. R., Grebitus, C., Loureiro, M. L., & Rousu, M. C. (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, 98, 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aav067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Gachter, S. (2009). Improvements and future challenges for the research infrastructure in the field “experimental economics” (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1445359). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1445359
- Hendriks, A. (2012). SoPHIE-Software platform for human interaction experiments (Working paper). University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Austria.Google Scholar
- Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–815. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000142 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krawczyk, M. (2013). Delineating deception in experimental economics: Researchers’ and subjects’ views (Faculty of Economic Sciences Working Paper, University of Warsaw). Retrieved from http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/files/4013/9636/8542/WNE_WP96_2013.pdf
- Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, B. J. (2014). The meaning of deceive in experimental economic science. In The Oxford handbook of professional economic ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, R. K., & Isaac, R. M. (2007). Political economy and experiments. Political Economist, 14, 1–7.Google Scholar