IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v85y2020ics2214804319301764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ethics of student participation in economic experiments: Arguments and evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffmann, Robert
  • Blijlevens, Janneke
  • Chuah, Swee-Hoon
  • Neelim, Ananta
  • Peryman, Joanne
  • Skali, Ahmed

Abstract

Despite strong professional practice norms experimental economists are increasingly subject to sweeping ethics review processes. A central issue in these processes is the recruitment of students as “overresearched” participants. We critically discuss the potential associated ethical risks typically identified in ethics regulations. We then test the efficacy of potential design countermeasures. We find support for some (informed consent procedures, debriefings, non-differential rewards, opt-in) but not others (research outside class time, educational relevance, non-teacher researchers). The paper intends to inform economists’ (1) design choices to reduce ethical risks without sacrificing scientific integrity, and (2) justification of these choices to ethics review boards.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffmann, Robert & Blijlevens, Janneke & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Neelim, Ananta & Peryman, Joanne & Skali, Ahmed, 2020. "The ethics of student participation in economic experiments: Arguments and evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:85:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319301764
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804319301764
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101521?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Abbink & Benedikt Herrmann, 2011. "The Moral Costs Of Nastiness," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 631-633, April.
    2. repec:feb:artefa:0106 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Andreas Ortmann & Ralph Hertwig, 2002. "The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-131, October.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:191-197 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    6. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    7. Frank, Bjorn, 1997. "The Impact of Classroom Experiments on the Learning of Economics: An Empirical Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(4), pages 763-769, October.
    8. Swee-Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Jeremy Larner, 2016. "Perceived Intentionality In 2 × 2 Experimental Games," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(S1), pages 78-84, December.
    9. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    10. Erkut, Hande & Nosenzo, Daniele & Sefton, Martin, 2015. "Identifying social norms using coordination games: Spectators vs. stakeholders," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 28-31.
    11. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    12. Lionel Page & Katie Page, 2017. "Reforms overdue for ethical reviewing," Nature, Nature, vol. 544(7649), pages 161-161, April.
    13. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    14. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    15. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    16. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    17. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    18. Christopher B. Barrett & Michael R. Carter, 2010. "The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non-random Reflections," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 515-548.
    19. Mark Dickie, 2006. "Do Classroom Experiments Increase Learning in Introductory Microeconomics?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 267-288, July.
    20. Bonetti, Shane, 1998. "Experimental economics and deception," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 377-395, June.
    21. Sheryl B. Ball & Catherine Eckel & Christian Rojas, 2006. "Technology Improves Learning in Large Principles of Economics Classes: Using Our WITS," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 442-446, May.
    22. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    23. Uri Gneezy & Muriel Niederle & Aldo Rustichini, 2003. "Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 1049-1074.
    24. John List, 2008. "Informed consent in social science," Artefactual Field Experiments 00086, The Field Experiments Website.
    25. Carolina Castilla, 2014. "Field Experiments in a Course on Behavioral Economics: Nudging Students Around Campus," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 211-224, September.
    26. Wenzel, Michael, 2005. "Motivation or rationalisation? Causal relations between ethics, norms and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 491-508, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filippos Exadaktylos & Antonio M. Espin & Pablo Branas-Garza, 2012. "Experimental Subjects are Not Different," Working Papers 12-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    3. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.
    4. Etienne Dagorn & David Masclet & Thierry Penard, 2019. "Les expériences sur les préférences individuelles et sociales des enfants et des adolescents : une revue de la litterature," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2019-11, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    5. Lovász, Anna & Bat-Erdene, Boldmaa & Cukrowska-Torzewska, Ewa & Rigó, Mariann & Szabó-Morvai, Ágnes, 2023. "Competition, subjective feedback, and gender gaps in performance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Giamattei, Marcus & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2015. "classEx: An online software for classroom experiments," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-68-15, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    7. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    8. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    10. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    11. Grossman, Philip J. & Eckel, Catherine & Komai, Mana & Zhan, Wei, 2019. "It pays to be a man: Rewards for leaders in a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 197-215.
    12. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    13. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    14. Antoci, Angelo & Bonelli, Laura & Paglieri, Fabio & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2019. "Civility and trust in social media," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 83-99.
    15. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    16. Guerra, Alice & Zhuravleva, Tatyana, 2021. "Do bystanders react to bribery?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 442-462.
    17. Francesco Bogliacino & Laura Jiménez & Gianluca Grimalda, 2015. "Consultative, Democracy and Trust," Documentos de Trabajo, Escuela de Economía 12696, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    18. Tisha Emerson & Denise Hazlett, 2011. "Classroom Experiments," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Gächter, Simon & Gerhards, Leonie & Nosenzo, Daniele, 2017. "The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 72-86.
    20. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Human participant research; Students; Research ethics; Informed consent;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:85:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319301764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.