Comparing experimental loss framing methods in a multi-leveled lying context Public

Abstract

Considering recent contradictions in the literature concerning the influence of loss aversion on cheating behavior, I study the extant methodological differences using the die-roll paradigm while comparing two common methods for framing outcomes as losses: the "Expected Value" method relying on the ex-ante expected earnings from the experiment and the "Money Manipulation" method that differentiates between participants who start with a zero or non-zero endowment. I find no significant evidence that loss affects (dis)honesty in Expected Value framing, contrasting previous evidence from coin-toss experiments. However, I find evidence that loss decreases lying under Money Manipulation framing, consistent with existing die-roll literature and significantly differing from the results of the Expected Value framing method. I consider these differences in the context of defaults, trust, and possible detection limitations. Comparing these results to prior research, I argue that further replications and direct comparisons between experimental methods used to study cheating behavior are necessary for lending broader generalizability and applicability to the results of future cheating experiments.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction                          1

2 Background                          5

3 Theoretical Model                          11

3.1 Effect of increasing ex-ante expected payoff on lying .......................13

4 Method                          17

4.1 Experimental Design .......................18

4.2 Balance Across Treatments .......................22

4.3 Hypotheses .......................23

5 Results                          26

5.1 Replication Validity .......................32

6 Discussion                          36

7 Conclusion                          45

A Supplemental Figures and Tables                          53

B Simulated Controls                          54

C Instructions                          56

C.1 Expected Value Loss .......................56

C.2 Expected Value Gain .......................58

C.3 Manipulated Loss .......................59

C.4 Manipulated Gain .......................61

C.5 Control .......................62

C.6 Survey .......................63

D Decision Motivation Comments                          65

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Emory College
Department	Economics
Degree	B.A.
Submission	Honors Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Behavioral Economics, General
Mot-clé	deception experimental design cheating moral cost social image loss aversion
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Kelli Lanier, Emory University
Committee Members	Weihua An, Emory University Stephen D. O'Connell, Emory University

Dernière modification

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Comparing experimental loss framing methods in a multi-leveled lying context ()	2022-05-03 11:19:01 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions