Card or dice? An improved experimental approach to measure dishonesty

IF 2.5 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Psychology Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2025.102802
Daniel Hermann , Selina Bruns , Oliver Mußhoff
{"title":"Card or dice? An improved experimental approach to measure dishonesty","authors":"Daniel Hermann ,&nbsp;Selina Bruns ,&nbsp;Oliver Mußhoff","doi":"10.1016/j.joep.2025.102802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We introduce a modified die-roll experiment carried out in Germany and Cambodia to measure precise dishonesty rates, while the individual lie is not observable to the experimenter. Participants draw an envelope from a box containing many envelopes. Each envelope contains a card depicting a die number, which participants view in private and then deposit into a different box filled with many envelopes. The payoff of participants depends on the reported number, thereby creating an incentive to dishonestly report numbers with higher payoffs. Although the individual lie remains hidden from the experimenter, the drawn distribution of cards by a group of participants is known. Results of the modified experiment are compared to the classical die-roll task, in which individual dishonesty is private information and the outcome distribution is assumed, based on a probability function. The comparison reveals that the modified card method shows comparable levels of lying to the classical die-roll task among students, but not among smallholders in rural Cambodia. Considering the farmers, the number of liars is lower in the card task compared to the die-roll task. Although the individual lie is not observable, we find partially different dishonesty proportions between numbers comparing the two tasks. This suggests that the observability of the drawn distribution affects the costs of lying.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48318,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Psychology","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102802"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487025000145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We introduce a modified die-roll experiment carried out in Germany and Cambodia to measure precise dishonesty rates, while the individual lie is not observable to the experimenter. Participants draw an envelope from a box containing many envelopes. Each envelope contains a card depicting a die number, which participants view in private and then deposit into a different box filled with many envelopes. The payoff of participants depends on the reported number, thereby creating an incentive to dishonestly report numbers with higher payoffs. Although the individual lie remains hidden from the experimenter, the drawn distribution of cards by a group of participants is known. Results of the modified experiment are compared to the classical die-roll task, in which individual dishonesty is private information and the outcome distribution is assumed, based on a probability function. The comparison reveals that the modified card method shows comparable levels of lying to the classical die-roll task among students, but not among smallholders in rural Cambodia. Considering the farmers, the number of liars is lower in the card task compared to the die-roll task. Although the individual lie is not observable, we find partially different dishonesty proportions between numbers comparing the two tasks. This suggests that the observability of the drawn distribution affects the costs of lying.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
31.40%
发文量
69
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with preferences, judgments, choices, economic interaction, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgements and decisions for economic processes and phenomena. This includes the impact of economic institutions upon human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation, from the household and the individual consumer to the macro level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as well as consumer information and economic behavior in the market place are thus among the fields of interest. The journal also encourages submissions dealing with social interaction in economic contexts, like bargaining, negotiation, or group decision-making. The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) novel reports of empirical (including: experimental) research on economic behavior; (b) replications studies; (c) assessments of the state of the art in economic psychology; (d) articles providing a theoretical perspective or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior; (e) articles explaining the implications of theoretical developments for practical applications; (f) book reviews; (g) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.
期刊最新文献
Heuristic centred-belief players Editorial Board ChatGPT and the labor market: Unraveling the effect of AI discussions on students’ earning expectations Performance under pressure and its impact on compensation: Evidence from professional basketball Card or dice? An improved experimental approach to measure dishonesty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1