Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments

Jayson Lusk

Food Policy, 2019, vol. 83, issue C, 2-4

Abstract: The historical justifications typically given for the prohibition against deception in economic experiments are less relevant for today’s experiments that are often conducted in non-lab settings with non-student subjects. I describe a variety of research questions that might be most adequately answered with some form of deception, and call for a more nuanced view of the issue that requires a consideration of the importance of the research question relative to the potential costs of deception. For example, in the case of new food products that have not yet been developed, does the sin of hypothetical bias outweigh the sin of deceiving subjects in a non-hypothetical experiment? It is important for journals or professions, which ban the use of deception, to actually define what practices fall under the ban.

Keywords: Experimental economics; Deception; Research ethics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218305402
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:2-4

DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.009

Access Statistics for this article

Food Policy is currently edited by J. Kydd

More articles in Food Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().