Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-h6p2m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-08T04:43:33.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Andreas Ortmann  and
Ralph Hertwig
Andreas Ortmann*
Affiliation:
Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education, Charles University; Economics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
Ralph Hertwig*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Columbia University, New York, USA; Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
*
email: [email protected]; [email protected]
email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, it has been argued that the evidence in social science research suggests that deceiving participants in an experiment does not lead to a significant loss of experimental control. Based on this assessment, experimental economists were counseled to lift their de facto prohibition against deception to capture its potential benefits. To the extent that this recommendation is derived from empirical studies, we argue that it draws on a selective sample of the available evidence. Building on a systematic review of relevant research in psychology, we present two major results: First, the evidence suggests that the experience of having been deceived generates suspicion that in turn is likely to affect the judgment and decision making of a non-negligible number of participants. Second, we find little evidence for the reputational spillover effects that have been hypothesized by a number of authors in psychology and economics (e.g., Kelman, H.C., 1967. Psychological Bulletin. 67, 1—11; Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A., 1993. Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton). Based on a discussion of the methodological costs and benefits of deception, we conclude that experimental economists’ prohibition of deception is a sensible convention that economists should not abandon.

Keywords

experimental economicsdeceptionreputational spillover effectsexperimental control

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , October 2002 , pp. 111 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

References

Adair, J.G. (1972). “Demand Characteristics or Conformity? Suspiciousness of Deception and Experimenter Bias in Conformity Research.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 4, 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, J.G., Dushenko, T.W., and Lindsay, R.C.L. (1985). “Ethical Regulation and Their Impact on Research Practice.” American Psychologist. 40, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aitkenhead, M. and Dordoy, J. (1985). “What the Subjects Have to Say.” British Journal of Social Psychology. 24, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, D.F. (1983). “Follow-up Analysis of Use of Forewarning and Deception in Psychological Experiments.” Psychological Reports. 52, 899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association, American Psychological. (1992). “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.” American Psychologist. 47, 1597–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. (1968). “Some Unintended Consequences of Rigorous Research.” Psychological Bulletin. 70, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asch, S.E. (1956). “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of one Against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs. 70 (9), no. 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2000). “Control Without Deception: Individual Behaviour in Free-Riding Experiments Revisited.” Experimental Economics. 3, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1964). “Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research. After Reading Milgram's Behavioral Study of Obedience.” American Psychologist. 19, 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1971). “Principles of Ethical Conduct in the Treatment of Subjects: Reaction to the Draft Report of the Committee on Ethical Standards in Psychological Research.” American Psychologist. 26, 887–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1985). “Research Using Intentional Deception: Ethical Issues Revisited.” American Psychologist. 40, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J.W., and McCabe, K.A. (1995). “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, L. (1974). “Some Determinants of Impulsive Aggression: Role of Mediated Associations with Reinforcements for Aggression.” Psychological Review. 81, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkowitz, L. and LePage, L. (1967). “Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 7, 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonetti, S. (1998a). “Experimental Economics and Deception: Reply.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 19, 411–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonetti, S. (1998b). “Experimental Economics and Deception.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 19, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, T.C. and Becker, L.A. (1966). “Debriefing and Susceptibility to Subsequent Experimental Manipulations.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2, 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chipman, A. (1966). “Conformity as a Differential Function of Social Pressure and Judgment Difficulty.” The Journal of Social Psychology. 70, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. (1977). “The negative Subject: Myth, Reality, or a Prior Experimental Experience Effect?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. (1988). “Deception in Psychological Research: When is its Use Justified?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 14, 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Cook, T.D., Bean, J.R., Calder, B.J., Frey, R., Krovetz, M.L., and Reisman, S.R. (1970). “Demand Characteristics and Three Conceptions of the Frequently Deceived Subject.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T.D. and Perrin, B.F. (1971). “The Effects of Suspiciousness of Deception and the Perceived Legitimacy of Deception on Task Performance in an Attitude Change Experiment.” Journal of Personality. 39, 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, X. (1986). “Academic Value of Research Participation by Undergraduates.” American Psychologist. 41, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darley, J.M. and Latane, B. (1968). “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 8, 377–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickhaut, J., Hubbard, J., and McCabe, K. (1995). “Trust, Reciprocity, and Interpersonal History: Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me.” (Working paper). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Endler, N.S. and Hartley, S. (1973). “Relative Competence, Reinforcement and Conformity.” European Journal of Social Psychology. 3, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, N.S., Wiesenthal, D.L., and Geller, S.H. (1972). “The Generalization of the Effects of Agreement and Correctness on Relative Competence Mediating Conformity.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 4, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N. and Huff, C. (1998). “Suspicion, Affective Response, and Educational Benefit as a Result of Deception in Psychology Research.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24, 759–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettinger, R.F., Marino, C.J., Endler, N.S., Geller, S.H., and Natziuk, T. (1971). “The Effects of Agreement and Correctness on Relative Competence and Conformity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 19, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. (1966). “Prior Deception and Subsequent Experimental Performance: The ‘faithful’ subject.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4, 532–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillenbaum, S. and Frey, R. (1970). “More on the ‘Faithful’ Behavior of Suspicious Subjects.” Journal of Personality. 38, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, P.D. (1987). “When Consent Information Refers to Risk and Deception: Implications for Social Research.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 2, 37–48.Google Scholar
Fisher, C.B. and Fyrberg, D. (1994). “Participant Partners: College Students Weigh the Costs and Benefits of Deceptive Research.” American Psychologist. 49, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallo, P.S., Smith, S., and Mumford, S. (1973). “Effects of Deceiving Subjects upon Experimental Results.” The Journal of Social Psychology. 89, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, S.H. and Endler, N.S. (1973). “The Effects of Subject Roles, Demand Characteristics, and Suspicion on Conformity.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 5, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, S.H., Endler, N.S., and Wiesenthal, D.L. (1973). “Conformity as a Function of Task Generalization and Relative Competence.” European Journal of Social Psychology. 3, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, E.P. (1987). “College Students’ Reactions to Social Psychological Experiments Involving Deception.” Journal of Social Psychology. 107, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinski, R.J., Glinski, B.C., and Slatin, G.T. (1970). “Nonnaivety Contamination in Conformity Experiments: Sources, Effects, and Implications for Control.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16, 478485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, S.L. and Lichtenstein, E. (1970). “Confession of Awareness and Prior Knowledge of Deception as a Function of Interview Set and Approval Motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A.E. and Fleming, I. (1982). “Twenty Years of Deception in Social Psychology.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruder, C.L., Strumpfhauser, , and Wyer, R.S. (1977). “Improvement in Experimental Performance as a Result of Debriefing About Deception.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 3, 434–437.Google Scholar
Hausken, (1995a). “The Dynamics of Within-Group and Between-Group Interaction.” Journal of Mathematical Economics. 24, 655–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausken, K. (1995b). “Intra-Level and Inter-Level Interaction.” Rationality and Society. 7, 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. and Ortmann, A. (2001). “Experimental Practices in Economics: A Methodological Challenge for Psychologists?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24, 383–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R. and Ortmann, A. (2002a). “Economists’ and Psychologists’ Experimental Practices: How They Differ, Why They Differ, And How they Could Converge.” In Brocas, I. and Carrillo, J. (eds.), Psychology and Economics Decisions (pp. 253–272). Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R. and Ortmann, A. (2002b). “Deception and Experimental Control.” Manuscript (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin).Google Scholar
Hey, J.D. (1998). “Experimental Economics and Deception.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 19, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higbee, K.L. (1978). “How Credible are Psychological Researchers to College Students?” Journal of Psychology. 99, 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., and Smith, V.L. (1996). “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games.” American Economic Review. 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
Kelman, H.C. (1967). “Human Use of Human Subjects: The Problem of Deception in Social Psychology.” Psychological Bulletin. 67, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, A.J. (1996). Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: A Survey. Blackwell, Publishers.Google Scholar
Kimmel, A.J. (1998). “In Defense of Deception.” American Psychologist. 53, 803–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, D.M. (1990). Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupat, E. and Garonzik, R. (1994). “Subjects’ Expectations and the Search for Alternatives to Deception in Social Psychology.” British Journal of Social Psychology. 33, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, J.O. (1995). “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research.” In Kagel, J. and Roth, A.E. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, L. (1967). “Awareness, Learning and the Beneficent Subject as Expert Witness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 6, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCoun, R.J. and Kerr, N.L. (1987). “Suspicion in the Psychological Laboratory: Kelman's Prophecy Revisited.” American Psychologist. 42, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, T. and Starmer, C. (1998). “Experimental Economics and Deception: A Comment.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 19, 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milgram, S. (1964). “Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind.” American Psychologist. 19, 848–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, B.H. (1973). “Truth Telling in Subjects with Information About Experiments: Who is Being Deceived?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicks, S.D., Korn, J.H., and Mainieri, T. (1997). “The Rise and Fall of Deception in Social Psychology and Personality Research, 1921 to 1994.” Ethics and Behavior. 7, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliansky, A. (1991). “A Confederate's Perspective on Deception.” Ethics and Behavior. 1, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortmann, A. and Colander, D. (1997). “Teaching Tools: A Simple Principal-Agent Experiment for the Classroom.” Economic Inquiry. 35, 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A., Fitzgerald, J., and Boeing, C. (2000). “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History: A Re-examination.” Experimental Economics. 3, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A. and Hertwig, R. (1997). “Is Deception Acceptable?” American Psychologist. 52, 746–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A. and Hertwig, R. (1998). “The Question Remains: Is Deception Acceptable?” American Psychologist. 53, 806–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A. and Tichy, L. (1999). “Understanding Gender Effects in the Laboratory: Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 39, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, M.M. and Scheidt, R.H. (1971). “The Elusive Weapons Effect: Demand Awareness, Evaluation Apprehension, and Slightly Sophisticated Subjects.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 20, 304–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (2nd edn.). McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Rosnow, R.L. and Rosenthal, R. (1997). People Studying People: Artifacts and Ethics in Behavioral Research. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Rubin, Z. (1985). “Deceiving Ourselves About Deception: A Comment on Smith and Richardson's ‘Amelioration of Deception and Harm in Psychological Research.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48, 252253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Z. and Moore, J.C. (1971). “Assessment of Subjects’ Suspicions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 17, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarin, B.J., Rhoads, K.v.L., and Cialdini, R.B. (1998). “Deceiver's Distrust: Denigration as a Consequence of Undiscovered Deception.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24, 1167–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, D.P. (1969). “The Human Subject in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin. 72, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharpe, D., Adair, J.G., and Roese, N.J. (1992). “Twenty Years of Deception Research: A Decline in Subjects’ Trust?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 18, 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieber, J.E., Iannuzzo, R., and Rodriguez, B. (1995). “Deception Methods in Psychology: Have They Changed in 23 Years?” Ethics and Behavior. 5, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sieber, J.E. and Saks, M.J. (1989). “A Census of Subject Pool Characteristics and Policies.” American Psychologist. 44, 1053–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, I., Shulman, A.D., and Wiesenthal, D.L. (1970). “Effects of Deceiving and Debriefing Psychological Subjects on Performance in Later Experiments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, L.S. and Turner, C.W. (1976). “Evaluation Apprehension, Hypothesis Awareness, and the Weapons effect.” Aggressive Behavior. 2, 77–87.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.L. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review. 72, 923–955.Google Scholar
Smith, S.S. and Richardson, D. (1983). “Amelioration of Deception and Harm in Psychological Research: The Important Role of Debriefing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 1075–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, B., Adair, J.G., and Barnes, G.E. (1977). “A Reexamination of the Faithful Subject Role.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13, 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, D.J. (1976). “Ineffective Deception in Conformity Research: Some Causes and Consequences.” European Journal of Social Psychology. 6, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straits, B.C., Wuebben, P.L., and Majka, TJ. (1972). “Influences on Subjects’ Perceptions of Experimental Research Situations.” Sociometry. 35, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricker, L. (1967). “The True Deceiver.” Psychological Bulletin. 68, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stricker, L.J., Messick, S., and Jackson, D.N. (1969). “Evaluating Deception in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin. 71, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K.M. and Shepperd, J.A. (1996). “Probing Suspicion Among Participants in Deception Research.” American Psychologist. 51, 886–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toy, D., Olsen, J., and Wright, L. (1989). “Effects of Debriefing in Marketing Research Involving ‘Mild’ Deceptions.” Psychology and Marketing. 6, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, C.W., and Simons, L.S. (1974). “Effects of Subject Sophistication and Evaluation Apprehension on Aggressive Responses to Weapons.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 30, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, C.W., Simons, L.S., Berkowitz, L., and Frodi, A. (1977). “The Stimulating and Inhibiting Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Behavior.” Aggressive Behavior. 3, 355–378.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitelli, R. (1988). “The Crisis Issue Assessed: An Empirical Analysis.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 9, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimann, J. (1994). “Individual Behavior in a Free-Riding Experiment.” Journal of Public Economics. 54, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, R.L. and Erker, P.V. (1986). “The Effects of Prebriefing Misinformed Research Participants on Their Attributions of Responsibility.” Journal of Psychology. 120, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesenthal, D.L., Endler, N.S., and Geller, S.H. (1973). “Effects of Prior Group Agreement and Task Correctness on Relative Competence Mediating Conformity.” European Journal of Social Psychology. 3, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, R. and Willis, Y.A. (1970). “Role Playing Versus Deception: An Experimental Comparison.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16, 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar