Suchergebnisse

Recommended readings (Machine generated): 1. John A. List and David Lucking-Reiley (2000), 'Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment', American Economic Review, 90 (4), September, 961-72 -- 2. John A. List (2004), 'Testing Neoclassical Competitive Theory in Multilateral Decentralized Markets', Journal of Political Economy, 112 (5), 1131-56 -- 3. Paul Resnick, Richard Zeckhauser, John Swanson and Kate Lockwood (2006), 'The Value of Reputation on eBay: A Controlled Experiment', Experimental Economics, 9 (2), June, 79-101 -- 4. Suresh de Mel, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff (2008), 'Returns to Capital in Microenterprises: Evidence From a Field Experiment', Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXXIII (4), November, 1329-72 -- 5. Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman (2009), 'Observing Unobservables: Identifying Information Asymmetries with a Consumer Credit Field Experiment', Econometrica, 77 (6), November, 1993-2008 -- 6. Yan Chen, Teck-Hua Ho and Yong-Mi Kim (2010), 'Knowledge Market Design: A Field Experiment at Google Answers', Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12 (4), August, 641-64 -- 7. Ernst Fehr and John A. List (2004), 'The Hidden Costs and Returns of Incentives - Trust and Trustworthiness among CEOs', Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (5), September, 743-71 -- 8. Uri Gneezy and John A. List (2006), 'Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments', Econometrica, 74 (5), September, 1365-84 -- 9. Oriana Bandiera, Iwan Barankay and Imran Rasul (2007), 'Incentives for Managers and Inequality Among Workers: Evidence From a Firm Level Experiment', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (2), May, 729-73 -- 10. Ernst Fehr and Lorenz Goette (2007), 'Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence From a Randomized Field Experiment', American Economic Review, 97 (1), March, 298-317 -- 11. Tanjim Hossain and John A. List (2012), 'The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations', Management Science, 58 (12), December, 2151-67 -- 12. John A. List and David Lucking-Reiley (2002), 'The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign', Journal of Political Economy, 110 (1), February, 215-33 -- 13. Adriaan R. Soetevent (2005), 'Anonymity in Giving in a Natural Context - A Field Experiment in 30 Churches', Journal of Public Economics, 89 (11-12), December, 2301-23 -- 14. Craig E. Landry, Andreas Lange, John A. List, Michael K. Price and Nicholas G. Rupp (2006), 'Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence From a Field Experiment', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121 (2), May, 747-82 -- 15. Armin Falk (2007), 'Gift Exchange in the Field', Econometrica, 75 (5), September, 1501-11 -- 16. Jen Shang and Rachel Croson (2009), 'A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods', Economic Journal, 119 (540), October, 1422-39 -- 17. Yan Chen, F. Maxwell Harper, Joseph Konstan and Sherry Xin Li (2010), 'Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens', American Economic Review, 100 (4), September, 1358-98 -- 18. Ayelet Gneezy, Uri Gneezy, Leif D. Nelson and Amber Brown (2010), 'Shared Social Responsibility: A Field Experiment in Pay-What-You-Want Pricing and Charitable Giving', Science, 329 (5989), July, 325-7 -- 19. Steffen Huck and Imran Rasul (2011), 'Matched Fundraising: Evidence From a Natural Field Experiment', Journal of Public Economics, 95 (5-6), June, 351-62

Front Cover -- Handbook of ECONOMIC FIELD EXPERIMENTS: Handbook of Field Experiments -- Handbook of ECONOMIC FIELD EXPERIMENTS -- Copyright -- INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES -- CONTENTS -- CONTRIBUTORS -- I - The Challenge of ImprovingHuman Capital -- 1 - Impacts and Determinants of Health Levels in Low-Income Countries -- 1. INTRODUCTION -- 2. METHODOLOGICAL SECTION -- 2.1 Experimenting to estimate impacts of health improvements: beware of externalities -- 2.2 Experimenting to understand the determinants of health behavior: beware of measurement -- 2.3 Research transparency, registration, and preanalysis plans -- 3. EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF HEALTH ON INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY -- 3.1 Impacts of adult health and nutrition on productivity -- 3.2 Impacts of child health and nutrition on education -- 3.3 Impacts of child health and nutrition on later outcomes -- 4. ENVIRONMENTAL/INFRASTRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH -- 5. DEMAND FOR HEALTH PRODUCTS AND HEALTHCARE -- 5.1 Pricing experiments -- 5.1.1 Methods to estimate the demand curve -- 5.1.2 Results of pricing experiments -- 5.2 Liquidity experiments: credit and cash transfer experiments -- 5.3 Information experiments -- 5.3.1 Impact of information on willingness to pay -- 5.3.2 Impact of information on health behavior change -- 5.3.3 Impact of tailored information on behavior change -- 5.3.4 Impact of targeted information -- 5.4 Schooling experiments -- 5.5 Nonmonetary cost experiments -- 5.6 Incentive experiments -- 5.7 Psychology experiments -- 5.8 Taking stock: how important is the role of present bias in explaining observed preventive health behaviors? -- 5.9 Commitment experiments -- 6. SUPPLY OF HEALTH CARE -- 6.1 Experimental audit studies -- 6.2 Monitoring experiments -- 6.2.1 District-level contracting -- 6.2.2 Top-down, input-based incentives.

Political scientists are increasingly conducting field experiments that raise ethical issues that standard review criteria and processes are ill equipped to address. Field experiments can answer important questions, but they can also present various harms to individuals, communities, and political processes; undermine autonomy; introduce partnerships that present complex questions of responsibility; and damage the public's trust in the discipline. This article reviews published empirical and theoretical research, professional guidelines, and media accounts, blog posts, and other sources when appropriate. It characterizes the state of the field regarding the identification of ethical problems, relevant normative guidance, proposed strategies for managing ethical concerns, and issues on the horizon. It concludes that the discipline is making good progress, with robust guidelines and strategies for conducting field experiments ethically. However, there is still much work to be done in refining and expanding current guidance, addressing remaining issues, and promoting norms. This review concludes with some general recommendations for researchers conducting political science field experiments.

"Field Experiments on Political Behavior" published on by Oxford University Press.