不诚实实验知觉的定性研究

IF 1.7 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Methodology Pub Date : 2021-06-02 DOI:10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598
Nikola Frollová, M. Vranka, P. Houdek
{"title":"不诚实实验知觉的定性研究","authors":"Nikola Frollová, M. Vranka, P. Houdek","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We conducted focus groups with participants of a laboratory experiment on cheating with the aim to describe and structure participants’ lived experience with the experiment and to compare their perceptions with experimenters’ expectations. Our results suggest that participants often perceive both control and experimental conditions differently than intended by an experimenter. For example, the participants’ decisions may be affected by feeling that they have to make a choice and do not have the opportunity to leave the experimental situation; by not believing in the anonymity of the experiment, by misunderstanding of random processes, or by other considerations other than the ethicality, for example by how entertaining or effortful is the chosen course of action. Our results underscore how difficult it is to achieve internal validity even in laboratory research. We conclude that the laboratory research of dishonesty would be improved by taking into account different perceived frames of experimental designs.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"10 1","pages":"274 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative study of perception of a dishonesty experiment\",\"authors\":\"Nikola Frollová, M. Vranka, P. Houdek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We conducted focus groups with participants of a laboratory experiment on cheating with the aim to describe and structure participants’ lived experience with the experiment and to compare their perceptions with experimenters’ expectations. Our results suggest that participants often perceive both control and experimental conditions differently than intended by an experimenter. For example, the participants’ decisions may be affected by feeling that they have to make a choice and do not have the opportunity to leave the experimental situation; by not believing in the anonymity of the experiment, by misunderstanding of random processes, or by other considerations other than the ethicality, for example by how entertaining or effortful is the chosen course of action. Our results underscore how difficult it is to achieve internal validity even in laboratory research. We conclude that the laboratory research of dishonesty would be improved by taking into account different perceived frames of experimental designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Methodology\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"274 - 290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598","RegionNum":3,"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: 5

摘要

摘要:我们对实验室作弊实验的参与者进行了焦点小组讨论,目的是描述和构建参与者在实验中的生活体验,并将他们的感知与实验者的期望进行比较。我们的研究结果表明,参与者对控制条件和实验条件的感知往往与实验者的预期不同。例如,参与者的决定可能会受到他们必须做出选择并且没有机会离开实验情境的感觉的影响;不相信实验的匿名性,对随机过程的误解,或者是道德之外的其他考虑,例如,选择的行动过程有多有趣或多费力。我们的结果强调了即使在实验室研究中实现内部有效性是多么困难。我们的结论是,考虑到不同的感知框架的实验设计,不诚实的实验室研究将得到改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A qualitative study of perception of a dishonesty experiment
ABSTRACT We conducted focus groups with participants of a laboratory experiment on cheating with the aim to describe and structure participants’ lived experience with the experiment and to compare their perceptions with experimenters’ expectations. Our results suggest that participants often perceive both control and experimental conditions differently than intended by an experimenter. For example, the participants’ decisions may be affected by feeling that they have to make a choice and do not have the opportunity to leave the experimental situation; by not believing in the anonymity of the experiment, by misunderstanding of random processes, or by other considerations other than the ethicality, for example by how entertaining or effortful is the chosen course of action. Our results underscore how difficult it is to achieve internal validity even in laboratory research. We conclude that the laboratory research of dishonesty would be improved by taking into account different perceived frames of experimental designs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Methodology is a valuable forum which publishes the most current and exciting work in the broad field of economic methodology. The Journal of Economic Methodology addresses issues such as: ■Methodological analysis of the theory and practice of contemporary economics ■Analysis of the methodological implications of new developments in economic theory and practice ■The methodological writings and practice of earlier economic theorists (mainstream or heterodox) ■Research in the philosophical foundations of economics ■Studies in the rhetoric, sociology, or economics of economics
期刊最新文献
Economic methodology to preserve the past? Some reflections on economic theories and their dueling interpretations. Beyond uncertainty: reasoning with unknown possibilities (Elements in Decision Theory and Philosophy) Paternalism for rational agents Experimental approach to development economics: a review of issues and options Economic models and their flexible interpretations: a philosophy of science perspective
×
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