Experimental economics' inconsistent ban on deception

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
According to what I call the ‘argument from public bads’, if a researcher deceived subjects in the past, there is a chance that subjects will discount the information that a subsequent researcher provides, thus compromising the validity of the subsequent researcher’s experiment. While this argument is taken to justify an existing informal ban on explicit deception in experimental economics, it can also apply to implicit deception, yet implicit deception is not banned and is sometimes used in experimental economics. Thus, experimental economists are being inconsistent when they appeal to the argument from public bads to justify banning explicit deception but not implicit deception.
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HEREEI
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-05-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
A Definition of Deceiving.Mahon, James Edwin

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-05-22

Total views
26 ( #47,514 of 49,983 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #38,470 of 49,983 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.