IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12888.html

Measuring the Acceptability of Experimental Research in Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Capozza
  • Robert Dur
  • Pedro Rey-Biel

Abstract

This paper examines public acceptability of randomized experimental research in economics using a preregistered conjoint experiment with 1,471 U.S. respondents. Acceptability varies substantially across domains: health-promoting interventions rank highest, while covert political advertising falls below the scale midpoint. Participant vulnerability is the dominant design attribute, followed by country of implementation and funding source. We also ask who should set ethical standards for experimental research, finding that the public assigns greatest governance legitimacy to experiment participants, citizens, and scientists and least to elected representatives and lawyers. We complement these findings with a companion study of research-active economists (N= 461) across the same experimental scenarios. Economists rate experiments substantially higher overall, preserve the public’s acceptability hierarchy, and assign the highest governance legitimacy to scientists rather than experiment participants. Our findings have direct implications for IRB design, research communication, and the political economy of evidence-based policymaking.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Capozza & Robert Dur & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2026. "Measuring the Acceptability of Experimental Research in Economics," CESifo Working Paper Series 12888, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12888.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alabrese, Eleonora & Capozza, Francesco & Garg, Prashant, 2024. "Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 735, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Judd B. Kessler & Corinne Low & Colin D. Sullivan, 2019. "Incentivized Resume Rating: Eliciting Employer Preferences without Deception," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(11), pages 3713-3744, November.
    3. Zoë Cullen & Will Dobbie & Mitchell Hoffman, 2023. "Increasing the Demand for Workers with a Criminal Record," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(1), pages 103-150.
    4. Allison Dale & Aaron Strauss, 2009. "Don't Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 787-804, October.
    5. Guglielmo Briscese & John A. List, 2024. "Toward an Understanding of the Political Economy of Using Field Experiments in Policymaking," NBER Working Papers 33239, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jana Gallus, 2017. "Fostering Public Good Contributions with Symbolic Awards: A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment at Wikipedia," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 3999-4015, December.
    7. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    10. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2025. "Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(666), pages 538-555.
    11. Emanuele Colonnelli & Bo Li & Ernest Liu, 2024. "Investing with the Government: A Field Experiment in China," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(1), pages 248-294.
    12. Chlond, Bettina & Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2025. "Revealed preferences for policy experiments," Working Papers 0763, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    14. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2024. "The Null Result Penalty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 193-219.
    15. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Fischer, Mira & Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Zeidler, Helen, 2024. "The E-word – On the public acceptance of experiments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 235, pages 1-3.
    17. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    18. Leonardo Bursztyn & Alessandra L. González & David Yanagizawa-Drott, 2020. "Misperceived Social Norms: Women Working Outside the Home in Saudi Arabia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(10), pages 2997-3029, October.
    19. Hallsworth, Michael & Berry, Dan & Sanders, Michael & Sallis, Anna & King, Dominic & Vlaev, Ivo & Darzi, Ara, 2015. "Stating Appointment Costs in SMS Reminders Reduces Missed Hospital Appointments: Findings from Two Randomised Controlled Trials," Scholarly Articles 22856929, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Elisa Macchi, 2023. "Worth Your Weight: Experimental Evidence on the Benefits of Obesity in Low-Income Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(9), pages 2287-2322, September.
    21. repec:ces:ceswps:_11254 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Robert Mislavsky & Berkeley Dietvorst & Uri Simonsohn, 2020. "Critical Condition: People Don’t Dislike a Corporate Experiment More Than They Dislike Its Worst Condition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1092-1104, November.
    23. Beknazar-Yuzbashev, George & Stalinski, Mateusz, 2022. "Do social media ads matter for political behavior? A field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    24. Peter Andrebriq & Carlo Pizzinelli & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Subjective Models of the Macroeconomy: Evidence From Experts and Representative Samples," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 2958-2991.
    25. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    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. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    2. Elliott Ash & Francesco Capozza & Sergio Galletta, 2026. "Demand for Conversational AI: Purpose, Price, and the Social Cost of Wanting a Companion," CESifo Working Paper Series 12673, CESifo.
    3. Verena Tiefenbeck & Lorenz Goette & Kathrin Degen & Vojkan Tasic & Elgar Fleisch & Rafael Lalive & Thorsten Staake, 2018. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1458-1476, March.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. 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.
    6. Bordunos, A. & Kokoulina, L. & Ermolaeva, L., 2015. "Role of enterprise gamified system in fostering innovation capacity: A field experiment," Working Papers 6420, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    8. Rainer Eppel & Helmut Mahringer, 2021. "Die Effekte einer intensivierten Betreuung geringqualifizierter Jugendlicher mit Mindestsicherungsbezug. Evidenz aus der experimentellen Einführung eines Fallmanagements im Arbeitsmarktservice Wien," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 67022.
    9. John A. List, 2014. "Using Field Experiments to Change the Template of How We Teach Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 81-89, June.
    10. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2016. "Using artefactual field and lab experiments to investigate how fee-for-service and capitation affect medical service provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 17-23.
    11. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2012. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00467, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Hanks, Andrew S. & Just, David R. & Wansink, Brian, 2012. "Total Lunchroom Makeovers: Using the Principle of Asymmetric Paternalism to Address New School Lunchroom Guidelines," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123388, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Axel Franzen & Sonja Pointner, 2013. "The external validity of giving in the dictator game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 155-169, June.
    14. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    15. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    16. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Brosch, Hanna & Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Zeidler, Helen, 2026. "Are Gender Norms Shaped by Who Earns More?," IZA Discussion Papers 18661, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    19. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Carvajal, Daniel & Franco, Catalina & Isaksson, Siri, 2024. "Will Artificial Intelligence Get in the Way of Achieving Gender Equality?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 3/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 28 Apr 2025.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:ces:ceswps:_12888. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.