科学中的说服偏见:经济学能帮上忙吗?

IF 3.8 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Alfredo Di Tillio, Marco Ottaviani, Peter Norman Sørensen
{"title":"科学中的说服偏见:经济学能帮上忙吗?","authors":"Alfredo Di Tillio,&nbsp;Marco Ottaviani,&nbsp;Peter Norman Sørensen","doi":"10.1111/ecoj.12515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We investigate the impact of conflicts of interests on randomised controlled trials in a game-theoretic framework. A researcher seeks to persuade an evaluator that the causal effect of a treatment outweighs its cost, to justify acceptance. The researcher can use private information to manipulate the experiment in three alternative ways: (<i>i</i>) sampling subjects based on their treatment effect, (<i>ii</i>) assigning subjects to treatment based on their baseline outcome, or (<i>iii</i>) selectively reporting experimental outcomes. The resulting biases have different welfare implications: for sufficiently high acceptance cost, in our binary illustration the evaluator loses in cases (<i>i</i>) and (<i>iii</i>) but benefits in case (<i>ii</i>).</p>","PeriodicalId":48448,"journal":{"name":"Economic Journal","volume":"127 605","pages":"F266-F304"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ecoj.12515","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help?\",\"authors\":\"Alfredo Di Tillio,&nbsp;Marco Ottaviani,&nbsp;Peter Norman Sørensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecoj.12515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We investigate the impact of conflicts of interests on randomised controlled trials in a game-theoretic framework. A researcher seeks to persuade an evaluator that the causal effect of a treatment outweighs its cost, to justify acceptance. The researcher can use private information to manipulate the experiment in three alternative ways: (<i>i</i>) sampling subjects based on their treatment effect, (<i>ii</i>) assigning subjects to treatment based on their baseline outcome, or (<i>iii</i>) selectively reporting experimental outcomes. The resulting biases have different welfare implications: for sufficiently high acceptance cost, in our binary illustration the evaluator loses in cases (<i>i</i>) and (<i>iii</i>) but benefits in case (<i>ii</i>).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic Journal\",\"volume\":\"127 605\",\"pages\":\"F266-F304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ecoj.12515\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12515\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12515","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

我们在博弈论框架下研究了利益冲突对随机对照试验的影响。研究人员试图说服评估人员,使其相信治疗的因果效应超过其成本,从而证明接受治疗是合理的。研究者可以使用私人信息以三种可选的方式操纵实验:(i)根据治疗效果对受试者进行抽样,(ii)根据受试者的基线结果分配受试者接受治疗,或(iii)选择性地报告实验结果。由此产生的偏差具有不同的福利含义:对于足够高的接受成本,在我们的二元说明中,评估者在情况(i)和(iii)中损失,但在情况(ii)中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help?

We investigate the impact of conflicts of interests on randomised controlled trials in a game-theoretic framework. A researcher seeks to persuade an evaluator that the causal effect of a treatment outweighs its cost, to justify acceptance. The researcher can use private information to manipulate the experiment in three alternative ways: (i) sampling subjects based on their treatment effect, (ii) assigning subjects to treatment based on their baseline outcome, or (iii) selectively reporting experimental outcomes. The resulting biases have different welfare implications: for sufficiently high acceptance cost, in our binary illustration the evaluator loses in cases (i) and (iii) but benefits in case (ii).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Economic Journal
Economic Journal ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
3.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: The Economic Journal is the Royal Economic Society''s flagship title, and is one of the founding journals of modern economics. Over the past 125 years the journal has provided a platform for high quality and imaginative economic research, earning a worldwide reputation excellence as a general journal publishing papers in all fields of economics for a broad international readership. It is invaluable to anyone with an active interest in economic issues and is a key source for professional economists in higher education, business, government and the financial sector who want to keep abreast of current thinking in economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信