IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v56y2022i6d10.1007_s11135-022-01354-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental study of countermeasures against threats: real-world effects meet treatment effects

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Chytilek

    (Masaryk University)

  • Miroslav Mareš

    (Masaryk University)

  • Jakub Drmola

    (Masaryk University)

  • Lenka Hrbková

    (Masaryk University)

  • Petra Mlejnková

    (Masaryk University)

  • Zuzana Špačková

    (University of Defence)

  • Michal Tóth

    (Masaryk University)

Abstract

The experimental study of positions on policies and measures against various new types of threat is fast becoming a mainstream research practice. In this article we argue as follows: in security studies in particular, there is a risk that the experimental treatment is contaminated by subjects’ previous experience of the real world (‘contamination’), and this may substantially complicate the assessment of the size of the experimental treatment’s causal effect. We discuss ways to decrease the risk of uncontrolled contamination. Using two experimental case studies we show two typical cases of contamination in security studies (one, where the contamination of all treatments was extremely high, and another, where the level of contamination was unknown and might have varied across the experimental groups) and consider what this implies for the substantive results of the experiments. An analysis of contamination should become a routine, especially when reporting security experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Roman Chytilek & Miroslav Mareš & Jakub Drmola & Lenka Hrbková & Petra Mlejnková & Zuzana Špačková & Michal Tóth, 2022. "An experimental study of countermeasures against threats: real-world effects meet treatment effects," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4825-4840, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01354-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01354-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-022-01354-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-022-01354-4?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. Linos, Katerina & Twist, Kimberly, 2018. "Diverse Pre-Treatment Effects in Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 148-158, July.
    2. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    3. James N. Druckman & Thomas J. Leeper, 2012. "Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 875-896, October.
    4. Gaines, Brian J. & Kuklinski, James H. & Quirk, Paul J., 2007. "The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Paul Slovic, 2002. "Terrorism as Hazard: A New Species of Trouble," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 425-426, June.
    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. Kevin L. Cope, 2023. "Measuring law's normative force," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1005-1044, December.
    2. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    3. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    4. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    5. Turvey, Calum G. & Onyango, Benjamin & Cuite, Cara & Hallman, William K., 2010. "Risk, fear, bird flu and terrorists: A study of risk perceptions and economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-10, January.
    6. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    7. Manville, Michael & Levine, Adam Seth, 2018. "What motivates public support for public transit?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 567-580.
    8. Angino, Siria & Secola, Stefania, 2022. "Instinctive versus reflective trust in the European Central Bank," Working Paper Series 2660, European Central Bank.
    9. Bruno Castanho Silva & Jens Wäckerle & Christopher Wratil, 2022. "Determinants of Public Opinion Support for a Full Embargo on Russian Energy in Germany," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 170, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    10. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    11. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    12. Nadav G Shelef & Yael Zeira, 2023. "International recognition and support for violence among nonpartisans," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(4), pages 588-603, July.
    13. Diament, Sean M. & Kaya, Ayse & Magenheim, Ellen B., 2022. "Frames that matter: Increasing the willingness to get the Covid-19 vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    14. Erika Franklin Fowler & Sarah E. Gollust, 2015. "The Content and Effect of Politicized Health Controversies," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 155-171, March.
    15. Ilyana Kuziemko & Ebonya Washington, 2015. "Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate," NBER Working Papers 21703, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
    17. María José Hierro & Aina Gallego, 2018. "Identities in between," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(6), pages 1314-1339, July.
    18. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2011. "On the Complex Quantification of Risk: Systems‐Based Perspective on Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1175-1186, August.
    19. Meng, Tianguang & Su, Zheng, 2021. "When top-down meets bottom-up: Local officials and selective responsiveness within fiscal policymaking in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    20. Singh, Renu, 2023. "Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).

    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:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-022-01354-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.