Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Understanding Deception

Understanding Deception

Deception is a pervasive aspect of human communication. Empirical studies have shown that most individuals engage in some form of deceit on a daily basis, with approximately 20% of social exchanges involving deceptive elements. Lying follows a developmental trajectory, peaking during adolescence and declining with age, possibly due to the maturation of cognitive control and social accountability.Cognitive and Social Factors in Deception DetectionDespite its prevalence, accurately detecting...

Ethics in Research

Ethics in Research

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.

Bias

Bias

Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...

Deindividuation

Deindividuation

Deindividuation is a form of social influence on an individual’s behavior such that the individual engages in unusual or non-normal behavior while in a group setting. Why? Because in these group settings, the individual no longer sees themselves as an individual anymore, disinhibiting their behavior and personal restraint.

Social Proof

Social proof is a form of persuasion based on comparison and conformity. People compare their behavior and actions to what others are doing and will change to conform to do what their peers do.

Blinding

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Procedural Fairness in Exchange Matching Systems.

Journal of business ethics : JBE·2023

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 6, 2026

Combining Behavioral Endocrinology and Experimental Economics: Testosterone and Social Decision Making

Combining Behavioral Endocrinology and Experimental Economics: Testosterone and Social Decision Making

Published on: March 2, 2011

Experimental economics' inconsistent ban on deception.

¹University of California, San Diego, Department of Philosophy, 9500 Gilman Drive # 0119, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119, USA.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

|July 22, 2015

Summary

Experimental economists inconsistently ban explicit deception but not implicit deception, despite both potentially harming future research validity. This inconsistency undermines the argument from public bads in economic experiments.

Keywords:

Deception Experimental economics Public bad

More Related Videos

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Methods for Presenting Real-world Objects Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions

Methods for Presenting Real-world Objects Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions

Published on: June 21, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 6, 2026

Combining Behavioral Endocrinology and Experimental Economics: Testosterone and Social Decision Making

Combining Behavioral Endocrinology and Experimental Economics: Testosterone and Social Decision Making

Published on: March 2, 2011

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Methods for Presenting Real-world Objects Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions

Methods for Presenting Real-world Objects Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions

Published on: June 21, 2019

Area of Science:

Behavioral Economics
Experimental Economics
Research Ethics

Background:

The 'argument from public bads' suggests past researcher deception can invalidate future experiments by making subjects distrustful.
This argument underpins an informal ban on explicit deception in experimental economics.
Implicit deception, however, is not banned and is sometimes employed.

Purpose of the Study:

To analyze the consistency of applying the 'argument from public bads' to deception in experimental economics.
To highlight the inconsistency in banning explicit deception while permitting implicit deception.

Main Methods:

Conceptual analysis of the 'argument from public bads'.
Examination of current practices regarding deception in experimental economics.

Main Results:

The 'argument from public bads' logically applies to both explicit and implicit deception.
Experimental economists exhibit inconsistency by banning explicit deception but not implicit deception.

Conclusions:

The current application of the 'argument from public bads' in experimental economics is inconsistent.
Re-evaluation of policies on deception in experimental economics is warranted to ensure consistent ethical standards and experimental validity.