IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/artefa/00796.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

12 Best Practices for Leveraging Generative AI in Experimental Research

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Chang
  • Andrew Kennedy
  • Aaron Leonard
  • John List

Abstract

We provide twelve best practices and discuss how each practice can help researchers accurately, credibly, and ethically use Generative AI (GenAI) to enhance experimental research. We split the twelve practices into four areas. First, in the pre-treatment stage, we discuss how GenAI can aid in pre-registration procedures, data privacy concerns, and ethical considerations specific to GenAI usage. Second, in the design and implementation stage, we focus on GenAI's role in identifying new channels of variation, piloting and documentation, and upholding the four exclusion restrictions. Third, in the analysis stage, we explore how prompting and training set bias can impact results as well as necessary steps to ensure replicability. Finally, we discuss forward-looking best practices that are likely to gain importance as GenAI evolves.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Chang & Andrew Kennedy & Aaron Leonard & John List, 2024. "12 Best Practices for Leveraging Generative AI in Experimental Research," Artefactual Field Experiments 00796, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:artefa:00796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00796.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abhijit Banerjee & Rukmini Banerji & James Berry & Esther Duflo & Harini Kannan & Shobhini Mukerji & Marc Shotland & Michael Walton, 2017. "From Proof of Concept to Scalable Policies: Challenges and Solutions, with an Application," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 73-102, Fall.
    2. Melissa Dell, 2024. "Deep Learning for Economists," Papers 2407.15339, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    3. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland, 2023. "Conducting qualitative interviews with AI," CEBI working paper series 23-06, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    5. List, John A, et al, 2001. "Academic Economists Behaving Badly? A Survey on Three Areas of Unethical Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 162-170, January.
    6. Erik Brynjolfsson & Danielle Li & Lindsey Raymond, 2023. "Generative AI at Work," Papers 2304.11771, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    7. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2024. "Machine Learning as a Tool for Hypothesis Generation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(2), pages 751-827.
    8. Gary Charness & Brian Jabarian & John A. List, 2023. "Generation Next: Experimentation with AI," NBER Working Papers 31679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Anton Korinek, 2023. "Generative AI for Economic Research: Use Cases and Implications for Economists," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1281-1317, December.
    10. Melissa Dell, 2024. "Deep Learning for Economists," NBER Working Papers 32768, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. John List, 2024. "Experimental Economics: Theory and Practice," Natural Field Experiments 00792, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    13. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," Papers 2301.07543, arXiv.org.
    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. Rosa-García, Alfonso, 2024. "Student Reactions to AI-Replicant Professor in an Econ101 Teaching Video," MPRA Paper 120135, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    3. Nir Chemaya & Daniel Martin, 2023. "Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals," Papers 2311.14720, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    4. Cova, Joshua & Schmitz, Luuk, 2024. "A primer for the use of classifier and generative large language models in social science research," OSF Preprints r3qng, Center for Open Science.
    5. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland, 2023. "Conducting qualitative interviews with AI," CEBI working paper series 23-06, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    6. Shumiao Ouyang & Hayong Yun & Xingjian Zheng, 2024. "How Ethical Should AI Be? How AI Alignment Shapes the Risk Preferences of LLMs," Papers 2406.01168, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    7. Gary Charness & Brian Jabarian & John List, 2023. "Generation Next: Experimentation with AI," Artefactual Field Experiments 00777, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Felipe A. Csaszar & Harsh Ketkar & Hyunjin Kim, 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Strategic Decision-Making: Evidence from Entrepreneurs and Investors," Papers 2408.08811, arXiv.org.
    9. Benjamin S. Manning & Kehang Zhu & John J. Horton, 2024. "Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects," Papers 2404.11794, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    10. Kirshner, Samuel N., 2024. "GPT and CLT: The impact of ChatGPT's level of abstraction on consumer recommendations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Jesús Fernández-Villaverde & Galo Nuño & Jesse Perla, 2024. "Taming the Curse of Dimensionality: Quantitative Economics with Deep Learning," NBER Working Papers 33117, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lijia Ma & Xingchen Xu & Yong Tan, 2024. "Crafting Knowledge: Exploring the Creative Mechanisms of Chat-Based Search Engines," Papers 2402.19421, arXiv.org.
    13. Ali Goli & Amandeep Singh, 2023. "Exploring the Influence of Language on Time-Reward Perceptions in Large Language Models: A Study Using GPT-3.5," Papers 2305.02531, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    14. Evangelos Katsamakas, 2024. "Business models for the simulation hypothesis," Papers 2404.08991, arXiv.org.
    15. Yuan Gao & Dokyun Lee & Gordon Burtch & Sina Fazelpour, 2024. "Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina," Papers 2410.19599, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    16. Christoph Engel & Max R. P. Grossmann & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Integrating machine behavior into human subject experiments: A user-friendly toolkit and illustrations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    17. Yiting Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "The emergence of economic rationality of GPT," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120(51), pages 2316205120-, December.
    18. Jiafu An & Difang Huang & Chen Lin & Mingzhu Tai, 2024. "Measuring Gender and Racial Biases in Large Language Models," Papers 2403.15281, arXiv.org.
    19. Fulin Guo, 2023. "GPT in Game Theory Experiments," Papers 2305.05516, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    20. Fabio Motoki & Valdemar Pinho Neto & Victor Rodrigues, 2024. "More human than human: measuring ChatGPT political bias," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 198(1), pages 3-23, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:feb:artefa:00796. 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: Francesca Pagnotta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.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.