Does Studying Economics Teach You to Lie?

new paper by Raúl López-Pérez and Eli Spiegelman investigates “truth preferences” — i.e., preferences for being honest versus lying. Their goal was to study whether economics students lie more as a result of their education. Or do liars self-select? From the paper:

Does studying economics give people “maximizing” habits of thought, and thus cause them to  behave more in line with its own predictions, or do people already inclined towards such behavior tend to self-select into economics?

A computer test structured with a slight incentive to lie was administered to 258 students at The Autonomous University of Madrid. The screen showed two colors, and participants were paid 14 euros for declaring blue and 15 euros for declaring green to another person, regardless of the actual color shown on screen. So what happened? According to the authors, the business and economics (“B&E”) majors gamed the system:

Our results show that the subjects most likely to exhibit honest behavior in our decision problem are the “B&E” non-B&E students, particularly if they expect this behavior from other subjects. In contrast, we do not find significant differences in honesty between males and females or between religious or non-religious people. In addition, an instrumental variable analysis suggests that the difference between B&E and other students is in part a matter of learning, and not only self-selection. Hence, our results are in accordance with other experiments showing that B&E students tend to conform more neatly with the homo economicus paradigm, or alternatively with a utilitarian or  consequentialistic mode of reasoning in moral matters.

But given the experimental setting and the student’s awareness that they were participating in an experiment, does the experiment really demonstrate a tendency to lie? Or does it perhaps show that economics students are maximizers who saw the experiment as a constraint problem where the instructions were to be ignored in favor of maximization?

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. William Lentzsch says:

    Wondering how the distribution looks if you consider only the “profitable” or “non-profitable” lying (i.e., saying it was green when it was blue is profitable, and would make sense with a purely profit-seeking motive, whereas the reverse lie would actually cost the students)?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  2. joseph gold says:

    Why not increase the incentive to lie and see at which point people start lying? But if I were told I was going to receive 100 euro to say blue when I was clearly seeing green, well your results may get to vary.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  3. Steve O says:

    “But given the experimental setting and the student’s awareness that they were participating in an experiment, does the experiment really demonstrate a tendency to lie? Or does it perhaps show that economics students are maximizers who saw the experiment as a constraint problem where the instructions were to be ignored in favor of maximization?”

    That was my first thought. College experiments are like Survivor–it’s okay to forget about social conventions (i.e., honesty, fairness…) as long as you play the game well.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. Johnny Disaster says:

    It seems to me that the last sentence of this article is an illustration of the sort of mechanism by which B&E students are taught to lie.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  5. Jeff says:

    Well that’s interesting. So when experiments confirm the biases that you think of you declare them authoritative. But when it “disparages” economics/economics students (if that’s the conclusion that can definitively be drawn) then you dismiss it as “only an experiment” or “a maximization problem.” The idea of Freakonomics was to think about the hidden side of everything, the counter-intuitive conclusion not to dismiss research that concludes something that you don’t like.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • MW says:

      As I read the summary, I was thinking of just the objection stated in the final paragraph, but I am not an economist and I have no emotional or other investment in economists being good people.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Quinton says:

    This is cute and everything but this seems like a situation where the experimental setting is really limiting the how generalizable the results are (as noted in the article). Say the results didn’t carry involve the Econ students maximizing, then you could plausibly claim that economics fails to improve how efficient economics students are.

    Full disclosure, I’m probably a little sensitive to the charge as an econ grad student.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Malcolm says:

    This study would be so much better if the rewards for the other player were the inverse so that lying resulted in cheating someone else and not just maximizing their own reward. Disclosure, yes I studied business.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  8. Eli says:

    They say the instrumental variable analysis showed that the difference between BandE students and other students is partly from learning. But what have they used as an instrument? I’m imagining they want an instrument for being an Econ student (which is endogenous since we cannot separate between the possible tendency to lie that econ students learn from the major, and self selection which might make liars choose econ), which means they need something correlated with becoming an econ major, but only affecting tendency to lie through its effect on being an econ major. What could this be?

    Also, this experiment hardly proves that Econ majors are more inclined to lie. To make this experiment more effective, they should have had some kind of penalty for getting caught lying coinciding with the monetary incentive for lying. Without the penalty, there is no reason “lying” seems wrong to the student. There is no moral dilemma for the student to struggle with if the only outcome from the lie is that he/she gets paid more money. In fact, unless these students are not very smart, it seems like they would have a pretty easy time figuring out that the experimenters want them to say “green” more often since they have attached a higher price tag on it. So lying in this scenario might seem like the “right” thing to do. We talked about how there can be a bias in some surveys because participants don’t answer correctly, they try to give the answer that they think the researcher wants to hear. In this case, the students own incentives line up perfectly with doing what they think the researcher really wants, which is for them to say green more often.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Economon says:

      I would assume they used the time for which a student has been studying economics as an instrument, e.g. freshmen vs. seniors…if the effect is true no matter how long they’ve been studying economics they must’ve self selected and if you can’t find the effect for freshmen but for seniors then this would indicate an aquired condition

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0