IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/nvzt8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Ethics of Field Experiments in Authoritarian Contexts: A Comment on Cantoni, Yang, Yuchtman and Zhang (2019)

Author

Listed:
  • Landgrave, Michelangelo Geovanny

    (Princeton University)

Abstract

This article is a comment on Cantoni et al. (2019) and subsequent research conducted as part of the “Demand for Democracy” project. In the aforementioned article, researchers report a field experiment where Hong Kong research subjects are nudged to participate in a protest against the People’s Republic of China using an informational treatment. I argue that the field experiment is unethical because, in addition to being deceptive, it was conducted in an authoritarian context where research subjects can be punished for protesting and because research subjects have no practical recourse for any harm suffered as part of the experiment. The Demand for Democracy experiment is not only unethical, but is illustrative of a larger systemic problem with conducting experiments in authoritarian contexts. I propose that field experiments in authoritarian contexts be banned, or that the experimental community should at minimum adopt safeguards to protect research subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Landgrave, Michelangelo Geovanny, 2023. "The Ethics of Field Experiments in Authoritarian Contexts: A Comment on Cantoni, Yang, Yuchtman and Zhang (2019)," OSF Preprints nvzt8, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:nvzt8
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/nvzt8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/645cf2b160fc5d0f82ca1bfa/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/nvzt8?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. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth L. Leonard & John A. List, 2009. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1637-1664, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Daniel M. Butler & David E. Broockman, 2011. "Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 463-477, July.
    4. Flynn, D.J. & Krupnikov, Yanna, 2019. "Misinformation and the Justification of Socially Undesirable Preferences," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 5-16, April.
    5. Krawczyk, Michał, 2019. "What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-118.
    6. Davide Cantoni & David Y Yang & Noam Yuchtman & Y Jane Zhang, 2019. "Protests as Strategic Games: Experimental Evidence from Hong Kong's Antiauthoritarian Movement," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 1021-1077.
    7. Butler, Daniel M. & Nickerson, David W., 2011. "Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 55-83, August.
    8. Joanna N. Lahey & Douglas R. Oxley, 2018. "Discrimination at the Intersection of Age, Race, and Gender: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 25357, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Cooper, David J., 2014. "A Note on Deception in Economic Experiments," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(02), pages 111-114, 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. Garcia, Thomas & Massoni, Sébastien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Gary Charness & Anya Samek & Jeroen Ven, 2022. "What is considered deception in experimental economics?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 385-412, April.
    3. Button, Patrick & Walker, Brigham, 2020. "Employment discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in the United States: Evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    5. Sandro Ambuehl & Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Doerrenberg & Christoph Feldhaus & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Politicians' Social Welfare Criteria: An Experiment with German Legislators," CESifo Working Paper Series 10329, CESifo.
    6. Haeckl, Simone, 2022. "Image concerns in ex-ante self-assessments–Gender differences and behavioral consequences," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    7. Judd Kessler & Corinne Low & Colin D. Sullivan, 2019. "Incentivized Resume Rating: Eliciting Employer Preferences without Deception," Working Papers 2019-039, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    8. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    9. Peter Katuščák & Tomáš Miklánek, 2023. "What drives conditional cooperation in public good games?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 435-467, April.
    10. Ambuehl, Sandro & Blesse, Sebastian & Doerrenberg, Philipp & Feldhaus, Christoph & Ockenfels, Axel, 2023. "Politicians' social welfare criteria - An experiment with German legislators," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Judd B. Kessler & Corinne Low & Colin Sullivan, 2019. "Incentivized Resume Rating: Eliciting Employer Preferences without Deception," NBER Working Papers 25800, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Shagata Mukherjee, 2020. "What Drives Gender Differences in Trust and Trustworthiness?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 778-805, November.
    13. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    14. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    15. Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Falch, Ranveig & Hernæs, Ulrikke, 2016. "Gender, context and competition: Experimental evidence from rural and urban Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 31-37.
    16. Luis R. Martinez & Jonas Jessen & Guo Xu, 2023. "A Glimpse of Freedom: Allied Occupation and Political Resistance in East Germany," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 68-106, January.
    17. Astrid Sneyers & Anneleen Vandeplas, 2013. "Girl Power in Agricultural Production: How Much Does it Yield? A Case-Study on the Dairy Sector in India," LICOS Discussion Papers 34113, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    18. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Thomas Buser & Muriel Niederle & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2014. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1409-1447.
    20. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:nvzt8. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.