/pdf/the-theory-of-industrial-organization-19bejph0ej.pdf

The Theory of Industrial Organization

The Volunteer Subject.

Over the past decade, a large and growing body of experimental research has analyzed dishonest behavior. Yet the findings as to when people engage in (dis)honest behavior are to some extent unclear and even contradictory. A systematic analysis of the factors associated with dishonest behavior thus seems desirable. This meta-analysis reviews four of the most widely used experimental paradigms: sender-receiver games, die-roll tasks, coin-flip tasks, and matrix tasks. We integrate data from 565 experiments (totaling N = 44,050 choices) to address many of the ongoing debates on who behaves dishonestly and under what circumstances. Our findings show that dishonest behavior depends on both situational factors, such as reward magnitude and externalities, and personal factors, such as the participant's gender and age. Further, laboratory studies are associated with more dishonesty than field studies, and the use of deception in experiments is associated with less dishonesty. To some extent, the different experimental paradigms come to different conclusions. For example, a comparable percentage of people lie in die-roll and matrix tasks, but in die-roll tasks liars lie to a considerably greater degree. We also find substantial evidence for publication bias in almost all measures of dishonest behavior. Future research on dishonesty would benefit from more representative participant pools and from clarifying why the different experimental paradigms yield different conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The Truth About Lies: A Meta-Analysis on Dishonest Behavior

Statistical methods and scientific inference (3rd edition), by R. A. Fisher. Pp viii, 182. £4·95. 1973. SBN 0 02 844740 9 (Collier-Macmillan)

The main goal of the experimental study described in this paper is to investigate the sensitivity of probability weighting to the payoff structure of the gambling situation--namely the level of consequences at stake and the spacing between them--in the loss domain. For that purpose, three kinds of gambles are introduced: two kinds of homogeneous gambles (involving either small or large losses), and heterogeneous gambles involving both large and small losses. The findings suggest that at least for moderate/high probability of loss do both 'level' and 'spacing' effects reach significance, with the impact of 'spacing' being both opposite to and stronger than the impact of 'level'. As compared to small-loss gambles, large-loss gambles appear to enhance probabilistic optimism, while heterogeneous gambles tend to increase pessimism.

Probability weighting and the 'level' and 'spacing' of outcomes: An experimental study over losses

This target article is concerned with the implications of the surprisingly different experimental practices in economics and in areas of psychology relevant to both economists and psychologists, such as behavioral decision making. We consider four features of experimentation in economics, namely, script enactment, repeated trials, performance-based monetary payments, and the proscription against deception, and compare them to experimental practices in psychology, primarily in the area of behavioral decision making. Whereas economists bring a precisely defined “script” to experiments for participants to enact, psychologists often do not provide such a script, leaving participants to infer what choices the situation affords. By often using repeated experimental trials, economists allow participants to learn about the task and the environment; psychologists typically do not. Economists generally pay participants on the basis of clearly defined performance criteria; psychologists usually pay a flat fee or grant a fixed amount of course credit. Economists virtually never deceive participants; psychologists, especially in some areas of inquiry, often do. We argue that experimental standards in economics are regulatory in that they allow for little variation between the experimental practices of individual researchers. The experimental standards in psychology, by contrast, are comparatively laissez-faire. We believe that the wider range of experimental practices in psychology reflects a lack of procedural regularity that may contribute to the variability of empirical findings in the research fields under consideration. We conclude with a call for more research on the consequences of methodological preferences, such as the use on monetary payments, and propose a “do-it-both-ways” rule regarding the enactment of scripts, repetition of trials, and performance-based monetary payments. We also argue, on pragmatic grounds, that the default practice should be not to deceive participants.

Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists?-Open Peer Commentary-Different perspective of human behavior entail different experimental practices

R. Hertwig

Papers

Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists?-Open Peer Commentary-Different perspective of human behavior entail different experimental practices