Cheating in the Lab Predicts Fraud in the Field: An Experiment in Public Transportation

References

• Abeler J, Becker A, Falk A (2014) Representative evidence on lying costs. J. Public Econom. 113(May):96–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abeler J, Nosenzo D, Raymond D (2016) Preferences for truth-telling—A meta-study. IZA Discussion Paper 10188, Bonn.Google Scholar
• Alm J, Bloomquist KM, McKee M (2015) On the external validity of laboratory tax compliance experiments. Econom. Inquiry 53(2):1170–1186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econom. 92:1047–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armantier O, Boly A (2013) Comparing corruption in the laboratory and in the field in Burkina Faso and in Canada. Econom. J. 123(573):1168–1187.Google Scholar
• Azar OH, Shira Y, Bar-Eli M (2013) Do customers return excessive change in a restaurant? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93(September):219–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barfort S, Harmon N, Hjorth F, Olsen AL (2015) Dishonesty and selection into public service in Denmark: Who runs the world’s lest corrupt public sector? Working paper, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
• Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. J. Political Econom. 76(2):169–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benz M, Meier S (2008) Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):268–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bock O, Baetge I, Nicklisch A (2014) hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool. Eur. Econom. Rev. 71(October):117–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonfanti G, Wagenknecht T (2010) Human factors reduce aggression and fare evasion. Public Transport Internat. 59(1):28–32.Google Scholar
• Boyd C, Martini C, Rickard J, Russell A (1989) Fare evasion and non-compliance. J. Transport Econom. Policy 23(2):189–197.Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Charness G (2003) Truth or consequence: An experiment. Management Sci. 49(1):116–130.Link, Google Scholar
• Bucciol A, Piovesan M (2011) Luck or cheating? A field experiment on honesty with children. J. Econom. Psych. 32(1):73–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bucciol A, Landini F, Piovesan M (2013) Unethical behavior in the field: Demographic characteristics and beliefs of the cheater. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:248–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buehler S, Halbheer D, Lechner M (2014) Payment evasion. Working paper, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton RV (1963) Generality of honesty reconsidered. Psych. Rev. 70(6):481–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF (2015) The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. Frechette GR, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 249–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardenas JC, Carpenter J (2013) Risk attitudes and economic well-being in Latin America. J. Development Econom. 103(July):52–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6):1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Fehr E (2015) From the lab to the real world. Science 350(6260):512–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Masclet D, Villeval MC (2014) The dark side of competition for status. Management Sci. 60(1):38–55.Link, Google Scholar
• Choo L, Fonseca MA, Myles GD (2014) Do students behave like real taxpayers? Experimental evidence on taxpayer compliance from the lab and from the field. Working paper, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Maréchal MA (2015) Laboratory measure of cheating predict misbehavior at school. Working Paper 205, University of Zurich, Zurich.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Fehr E, Maréchal MA (2014) Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature 516:86–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Maréchal MA, Noll T (2015) Bad boys: How criminal identity salience affects rule violation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(4):1289–1308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conrads J, Irlenbusch B, Rilke RM, Walkowitz G (2013) Lying and team incentives. J. Econom. Psych. 34(1):1–7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conrads J, Irlenbusch B, Rilke RM, Schielke A, Walkowitz G (2014) Honesty in tournaments. Econom. Lett. 123(1):90–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper DJ, Kagel JH, Lo W, Gu QL (1999) Gaming against managers in incentive systems: Experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(4):781–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cour des Comptes (2016) La lutte contre la fraude dans les transports urbains en Île-de-France: Un échec collectif. Rapport public annuel 2016, Cour des Comptes, Paris, 537–577.Google Scholar
• Crawford V, Sobel J (1982) Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50(6):1431–1451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai Z, Galeotti F, Villeval MC (2016) The efficiency of crackdowns: A lab-in-the-field experiment in public transportations. Theory Decision 82(2):249–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai Z, Hogarth RM, Villeval MC (2015) Ambiguity on audits and cooperation in a public goods game. Eur. Econom. Rev. 74(February): 146–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donohue P (2010) Millions of fare-beaters take MTA for an $8 million bus ride. Daily News (March 17), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/millions-fare-beaters-mta-8-million-bus-ride-article-1.175537.Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Johnson CA, de Oliveira AC, Rojas C, Wilson RK (2012) School environment and risk preferences: Experimental evidence. J. Risk Uncertainty 45(3):265–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Tjøtta S, Torsvik G (2010) Testing guilt aversion. Games Econom. Behav. 68(1):95–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erat S, Gneezy U (2012) White lies. Management Sci. 58(4):723–733.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman J (2009) Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F (2013) Lies in disguise: An experimental study on cheating. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):525–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fréchette GR (2015) Laboratory experiments: Professionals versus students. Fréchette GR, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 360–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fréchette GR, Schotter A, eds. (2015) Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fürst E (2015) Free riders and ticket fraud in public transport: A Delphi analysis. Conference paper, Association for European Transport, Henley-in-Arden, UK. http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/3905/confid/18.Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Schultz JF (2016) Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531(7595): 496–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson R, Tanner C, Wagner AF (2013) Preferences for truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within individuals. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(1):532–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D (2009) Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psych. Sci. 20(3):393–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U (2005) Deception: The role of consequences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95:384–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Imas A, Madarasz K (2014) Conscience accounting: Emotion dynamics and social behavior. Management Science 60(11):2645–2658.Link, Google Scholar
• Halevy R, Shalvi S, Verschuere B (2014) Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Comm. Res. 40(1):54–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanna R, Wang SY (2015) Dishonesty and selection into public service. Working paper, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Hao L, Houser D (2013) Perceptions, intentions, and cheating. Working paper, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartshorne H, May MA (1928) Studies in the Nature of Character:, Studies in Deceit, Vol. 1 (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Hauber A, Hofstra B, Toornvliet L, Zandbergen A (1996) Some new forms of functional social control in the Netherlands and their effects. British J. Criminology 36(2):199–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herbst D, Mas A (2015) Peer effects on worker output in the laboratory generalize to the field. Science 350(6260):545–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houser D, Vetter S, Winter J (2012) Fairness and cheating. Eur. Econom. Rev. 56(8):1645–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Irlenbusch B, Villeval MC (2015) Behavioral ethics: How psychology influenced economics and how economics might inform psychology? Current Opinion Psych. 6:87–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• IRS (2016) Tax gap estimates for tax years 2008–2010. Report, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC. https://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/tax%20gap%20estimates%20for%202008%20through%202010.pdf.Google Scholar
• Jiang T (2013) Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:328–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kajackaite A, Gneezy U (2015) Lying costs and incentives. Discussion Paper, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.Google Scholar
• Kastlunger B, Kirchler E, Mittone L, Pitters J (2009) Sequences of audits, tax compliance, and tax paying strategies. J. Econom. Psych. 30:405–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keolis (2014) Fraude: Comment lutter? Accessed December 28, 2015, http://www.keolis.com/.Google Scholar
• Killias M, Scheidegger D, Nordenson P (2009) The effects of increasing the certainty of punishment: A field experiment on public transportation. Eur. J. Criminology 6(5):387–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kooreman P (1993) Fare evasion as a result of expected utility maximization. J. Transport Econom. Policy 27(1):69–74.Google Scholar
• Levitt S, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments social preferences reveal about the real world. J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2006) The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. J. Political Econom. 114(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2009) The economics of open air markets. NBER Working Paper 15420, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lundquist T, Ellingsen T, Gribbe E, Johannesson M (2009) The aversion to lying. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 70:81–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maggian V, Villeval MC (2016) Social preferences and lying aversion in children. Experiment. Econom. 19(3):663–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Ariely D (2006) Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. J. Public Policy Marketing 25(1):117–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Marketing Res. 45(6):633–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nikiforakis N (2007) Fines for young public transport offenders: Insights from the economics literature. Unpublished paper, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.Google Scholar
• Potters J, Stoop J (2016) Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field? Eur. Econom. Rev. 87(August):26–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pruckner GJ, Sausgruber R (2013) Honesty on the streets: A field study on newspaper purchasing. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):661–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosaz J, Villeval MC (2012) Lies and biased evaluation: A real-effort experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 84(2):537–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shalvi S, Dana J, Handgraaf MJJ, De Dreu CKW (2011) Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 115:181–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith MJ, Clarke RV (2000) Crime and public transport. Crime Justice: Rev. Res. 27:169–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoop J, Noussair CN, Van Soest D (2012) From the lab to the field: Cooperation among fishermen. J. Political Econom. 120(6):1027–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutter M (2009) Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams. Econom. J. 119:47–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torgler B (2007) Tax Compliance and Tax Morale. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utikal V, Fischbacher U (2013) Disadvantageous lies in individual decisions. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 85:108–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Andel H (1989) Crime Prevention that works: The care of public transport in the Netherlands. British J. Criminology 29(1):47–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vanberg C (2008) Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 76(6):1467–1480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimerman L, Shalvi S, Bereby-Meyer Y (2014) Self-reported ethical risk taking tendencies predict actual dishonesty. Judgment and Decision Making 9(1):58–64.Google Scholar
• Zizzo DJ (2012) Inducing natural group identity: A RDP analysis. CBESS Discussion Paper 12-01, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar