IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When money talks: Judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Leuker
  • Lasare Samartzidis
  • Ralph Hertwig
  • Timothy J Pleskac

Abstract

Millions of volunteers take part in clinical trials every year. This is unsurprising, given that clinical trials are often much more lucrative than other types of unskilled work. When clinical trials offer very high pay, however, some people consider them repugnant. To understand why, we asked 1,428 respondents to evaluate a hypothetical medical trial for a new Ebola vaccine offering three different payment amounts. Some respondents (27%) used very high pay (£10,000) as a cue to infer the potential risks the clinical trial posed. These respondents were also concerned that offering £10,000 was coercive— simply too profitable to pass up. Both perceived risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials shape how people evaluate these trials. This result was robust within and between respondents. The link between risk and repugnance may generalize to other markets in which parties are partially remunerated for the risk they take and contributes to a more complete understanding of why some market transactions appear repugnant.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Leuker & Lasare Samartzidis & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J Pleskac, 2020. "When money talks: Judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227898
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227898
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227898&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227898?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Julio J. Elias & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 22632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    4. Cryder, Cynthia E. & John London, Alex & Volpp, Kevin G. & Loewenstein, George, 2010. "Informative inducement: Study payment as a signal of risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 455-464, February.
    5. Nussbaum, Martha C, 1998. ""Whether from Reason or Prejudice": Taking Money for Bodily Services," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 693-724, June.
    6. Sandro Ambuehl & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2015. "More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay Be Coercive and Repugnant?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 357-360, May.
    7. Mantzari, Eleni & Vogt, Florian & Marteau, Theresa M., 2014. "Does incentivising pill-taking ‘crowd out’ risk-information processing? Evidence from a web-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 75-82.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Nicola Lacetera, 2016. "Incentives and Ethics in the Economics of Body Parts," NBER Working Papers 22673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sandro Ambuehl, 2017. "An Offer You Can't Refuse? Testing Undue Inducement," CESifo Working Paper Series 6296, CESifo.
    3. Huesmann, Katharina & Wambach, Achim, 2020. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224636, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Paola Salardi, 2017. "Economic Development and the Regulation of Morally Contentious Activities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 76-80, May.
    5. Roland Benabou & Armin Falk & Jean Tirole, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," Working Papers id:12918, eSocialSciences.
    6. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Projective Paternalism," CESifo Working Paper Series 7762, CESifo.
    7. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    8. Elias, Julio & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10187, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2021. "Why People Oppose Trade Institutions - On Morality, Fairness and Risky Actions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9456, CESifo.
    10. Philip J Held & Frank McCormick & Glenn M Chertow & Thomas G Peters & John P Roberts, 2018. "Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    11. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    12. Marta Serra-Garcia & Nora Szech, 2023. "Incentives and Defaults Can Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Test Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1037-1049, February.
    13. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    14. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    15. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Ethics and market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 705-720.
    16. Kübler, Dorothea & Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Repugnant Transactions: The Role of Agency and Extreme Consequences," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264052, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. CARBALLA SMICHOWSKI Bruno & DUCH BROWN Nestor & MARTENS Bertin, 2021. "To pool or to pull back? An economic analysis of health data pooling," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2021-06, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Chatterjee, Subimal & Dalman, M. Deniz & Mookherjee, Satadruta, 2020. "To short or not to short? Improving morality judgments of short trades and short traders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 173-185.
    19. Julio Elias & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2017. "Understanding repugnance: Implications for public policy," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 614, Universidad del CEMA.
    20. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0227898. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.