DOCSLIB.ORG

Field Experiments with Firms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Management Papers Wharton Faculty Research 2011 Field Experiments With Firms Oriana Bandiera Iwan Barankay University of Pennsylvania Imran Rasul Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons Recommended Citation Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2011). Field Experiments With Firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25 (3), 63-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.63 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/99 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Field Experiments With Firms Abstract We discuss how the use of field experiments sheds light on long-standing esearr ch questions relating to firm behavior. We present insights from two classes of experiments—within and across firms—and draw common lessons from both sets. Field experiments within firms generally aim to shed light on the nature of agency problems. Along these lines, we discuss how field experiments have provided new insights on shirking behavior and the provision of monetary and nonmonetary incentives. Field experiments across firms generally aim to uncover firms' binding constraints by exogenously varying the availability of key inputs such as labor, physical capital, and managerial capital. We conclude by discussing some of the practical issues researchers face when designing experiments and by highlighting areas for further research. Disciplines Business Administration, Management, and Operations This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/99 Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 25, Number 3—Summer 2011—Pages 63–82 Field Experiments with Firms Oriana Bandiera, Iwan Barankay, and Imran Rasul iirmsrms ooperateperate iinn ccomplexomplex eenvironments:nvironments: a llistist ooff tthehe ccategoriesategories inin whichwhich ttheyhey nneedeed ttoo mmakeake iinterrelatednterrelated cchoiceshoices wouldwould iincludenclude employeeemployee ppay,ay, F ppricing,ricing, pproductroduct aattributes,ttributes, pproductionroduction ttechnologies,echnologies, aandnd mmanagement.anagement. IInn tturn,urn, tthesehese ddecisionsecisions iinvolvenvolve rrespondingesponding toto ccharacteristicsharacteristics thatthat areare ooftenften hardhard toto mmeasureeasure oorr uuncertain,ncertain, suchsuch asas tthosehose rrelatedelated ttoo marketmarket characteristics,characteristics, thethe produc-produc- ttivityivity ofof iindividualndividual inputs,inputs, aandnd entrepreneurialentrepreneurial ability.ability. DueDue toto thethe complexitycomplexity ofof tthehe eenvironment,nvironment, rresearchesearch tthathat seeksseeks ttoo uunderstandnderstand tthehe bbehaviorehavior ooff fi rmsrms basedbased onon oobservationalbservational ddataata ffacesaces mmanyany cchallengeshallenges aatt uuncoveringncovering ccausalausal rrelationships.elationships. IInn tthishis ppaper,aper, wwee iillustratellustrate howhow fi eeldld experiments,experiments, guidedguided byby economiceconomic theory,theory, cancan addressaddress tthesehese cchallengeshallenges aandnd provideprovide newnew answersanswers ttoo llong-standingong-standing questionsquestions aboutabout fi rms:rms: DDoo fi rrmm cchoiceshoices maximizemaximize pprofirofi tsts ssubjectubject toto cconstraints?onstraints? IfIf so,so, whichwhich constraintsconstraints bbindind aandnd iinformnform ddecisionecision mmakingaking iinn fi rrms?ms? IfIf nnot,ot, wwhyhy areare fi rmsrms operatingoperating insideinside tthehe ffrontier?rontier? IInn tthishis ppaper,aper, wwee rrevieweview fi eldeld experimentsexperiments thatthat provideprovide preliminarypreliminary answersanswers toto tthesehese qquestionsuestions aandnd mmapap ddirectionsirections fforor ffurtherurther rresearch.esearch. WeWe oorganizerganize oourur discus-discus- ssionion iintonto ttwowo cclasseslasses ooff work.work. TThehe fi rstrst isis fi eeldld experimentsexperiments conductedconducted within fi rrms,ms, iinn wwhichhich tthehe uunitsnits ooff oobservationbservation areare wworkersorkers oror ddivisionsivisions ofof a fi rm.rm. TheThe theorytheory bbehindehind mmanyany ooff tthesehese eexperimentsxperiments vviewsiews tthehe fi rmrm asas anan organization,organization, emphasizingemphasizing aagencygency pproblems.roblems. WWee ddiscussiscuss fi eeldld eexperimentsxperiments tthathat sshedhed llightight onon solutionssolutions toto thethe aagencygency pproblem,roblem, ffromrom iincentivencentive ppayay ttoo ssocialocial ppressureressure aandnd nnonmonetaryonmonetary rrewards.ewards. ■ OOrianariana BandieraBandiera isis ProfessorProfessor ofof Economics,Economics, LondonLondon SchoolSchool ofof EconomicsEconomics andand PoliticalPolitical SScience,cience, LLondon,ondon, UUnitednited KKingdom.ingdom. IIwanwan BBarankayarankay iiss AAssociatessociate PProfessorrofessor ooff MManagement,anagement, WWhartonharton SSchool,chool, UniversityUniversity ooff PPennsylvania,ennsylvania, Philadelphia,Philadelphia, PPennsylvania.ennsylvania. IImranmran RRasulasul iiss PProfessorrofessor ooff EEconomics,conomics, UUniversityniversity CCollegeollege LLondon,ondon, LLondon,ondon, UnitedUnited Kingdom.Kingdom. TheirTheir e-maile-mail aaddressesddresses areare 〈[email protected]@lse.ac.uk〉, 〈[email protected]@wharton.upenn.edu〉, aandnd 〈[email protected]@ucl.ac.uk〉. doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.63 64 Journal of Economic Perspectives TThehe ssecondecond sstrandtrand ccoversovers fi eeldld experimentsexperiments conductedconducted between fi rrms,ms, iinn wwhichhich tthehe fi rrmm iiss tthehe uunitnit ooff oobservation.bservation. TheThe ttheoryheory behindbehind mostmost ofof thesethese experimentsexperiments viewsviews tthehe fi rrmm tthroughhrough tthehe llensens ooff nneoclassicaleoclassical productionproduction theory,theory, andand soso wewe ddiscussiscuss hhowow fi eeldld eexperimentsxperiments hhaveave eexogenouslyxogenously variedvaried inputinput availabilityavailability toto shedshed lightlight onon cconstraintsonstraints fi rrmsms fface.ace. TThroughout,hroughout, wwee ffocusocus oonn eexperimentsxperiments ddesignedesigned ttoo sshedhed llightight oonn fi rms’rms’ behavior.behavior. TThishis sstilltill lleaveseaves ooutut a largelarge classclass ofof fi eldeld experimentsexperiments thatthat areare runrun inin collaborationcollaboration wwithith fi rrmsms ttoo pproviderovide eevidencevidence oonn ootherther iissuesssues ssuchuch aass cconsumeronsumer bbehaviorehavior oror ooptimalptimal aauctionuction ddesign.esign.1 BBeyondeyond tthehe rresultsesults ooff sspecifipecifi c fi eeldld experimentexperiment studies,studies, wewe alsoalso believebelieve thatthat eeconomistsconomists ccanan rreapeap eenormousnormous bbenefienefi tsts fromfrom establishingestablishing workingworking partnershipspartnerships wwithith fi rrmsms aandnd eengagingngaging iinn pprimaryrimary ddataata ccollection.ollection. TThus,hus, wwee cconcludeonclude tthehe ppaperaper bbyy oofferingffering ssomeome ddiscussioniscussion ooff tthehe ppracticalractical iissuesssues rresearchersesearchers ffaceace iinn ddesigningesigning aandnd iimplementingmplementing fi eeldld eexperimentsxperiments inin fi rms,rms, andand bbyy hhighlightingighlighting researchresearch questionsquestions tthathat rremainemain rrelativelyelatively uuntouchedntouched bbyy fi eldeld eexperiments.xperiments. WeWe hhopeope thatthat bbyy thethe eendnd ofof oourur ddiscussion,iscussion, rreaderseaders hhaveave a clearclear ssenseense ofof thethe costscosts andand benefibenefi tsts ofof fi eldeld experi-experi- mmentsents iinn fi rrmm ssettings,ettings, aandnd aarere mmotivatedotivated ttoo cconsideronsider tthishis aapproachpproach tthemselves.hemselves. FFieldield EExperimentsxperiments wwithinithin FFirmsirms FFieldield eexperimentsxperiments wwithinithin fi rrmsms aarere generallygenerally designeddesigned toto shedshed lightlight onon howhow fi rrmsms ccanan ssolveolve aagencygency pproblemsroblems aandnd motivatemotivate theirtheir employees.employees. InIn thisthis section,section, wewe rrevieweview eevidencevidence oonn thethe twotwo cclassicallassical ssolutionsolutions ttoo tthishis aagencygency problem—monitoringproblem—monitoring aandnd ppayay fforor pperformance—aserformance—as wwellell aass mmoreore rrecentecent wworkork oonn nnonmonetaryonmonetary ddetermi-etermi- nnantsants ooff mmotivationotivation ssuchuch aass ssocialocial rrelationselations oorr sstatustatus rrewards.ewards. AAlthoughlthough fi eeldld eexperimentsxperiments wwithinithin fi rmsrms havehave experiencedexperienced a recentrecent resurgence,resurgence, ttheyhey aarere farfar ffromrom nnew.ew. OOnene ofof tthehe fi rrstst sserieseries ofof fi eldeld eexperimentsxperiments waswas conductedconducted atat tthehe HHawthorneawthorne pplantlant ooff tthehe WWesternestern EElectriclectric Company,Company, nnearear CChicago,hicago, iinn thethe 1920s.1920s. WWhilehile tthehe vvalidityalidity ooff ttheirheir sspecifipecifi c fi ndingsndings hashas bbeeneen questioned,questioned,2 tthesehese eexperimentsxperiments llayay tthehe ggroundworkroundwork fforor manymany iissuesssues tthathat aarere nnowow cconsideredonsidered ppartart ooff mainstreammainstream ppersonnelersonnel eeconomicsconomics ((BloomBloom aandnd VVanan RReenen,eenen, 22010a).010a). FForor eexample,xample, ttheyhey lleded MMayoayo ((1933)1933) ttoo sstresstress tthathat wworkersorkers aarere mmotivatedotivated bbyy
Recommended publications
  • A Field Experiment with Job Seekers in Germany Search:Learning Job About IZA DP No

    A Field Experiment with Job Seekers in Germany Search:Learning Job About IZA DP No

    IZA DP No. 9040 Learning about Job Search: A Field Experiment with Job Seekers in Germany Steffen Altmann Armin Falk Simon Jäger Florian Zimmermann May 2015 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Learning about Job Search: A Field Experiment with Job Seekers in Germany Steffen Altmann University of Copenhagen and IZA Armin Falk University of Bonn, CEPR, CESifo, DIW, IZA and MPI Simon Jäger Harvard University and IZA Florian Zimmermann University of Zurich, CESifo and IZA Discussion Paper No. 9040 May 2015 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public.
  • Quantification of the Hawthorne Effect in Hand Hygiene Compliance Monitoring Using an Electronic Monitoring System: a Retrospective Cohort Study

    Quantification of the Hawthorne Effect in Hand Hygiene Compliance Monitoring Using an Electronic Monitoring System: a Retrospective Cohort Study

    BMJ Quality & Safety Online First, published on 7 July 2014 as 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003080ORIGINAL RESEARCH BMJ Qual Saf: first published as 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003080 on 7 July 2014. Downloaded from Quantification of the Hawthorne effect in hand hygiene compliance monitoring using an electronic monitoring system: a retrospective cohort study Jocelyn A Srigley,1,2 Colin D Furness,3,4 G Ross Baker,1 Michael Gardam5,6 1Institute of Health Policy, ABSTRACT healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), Management & Evaluation, Background The Hawthorne effect, or which are the most common adverse University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada behaviour change due to awareness of being event experienced by patients during 1 2Department of Medicine, observed, is assumed to inflate hand hygiene medical care. HCW hand hygiene is McMaster University, Hamilton, compliance rates as measured by direct known to be suboptimal2 and multifa- Ontario, Canada observation but there are limited data to ceted improvement programmes are 3Infonaut Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada support this. recommended, including measurement 3 4Faculty of Information, Objective To determine whether the presence and feedback of compliance rates. Direct University of Toronto, Toronto, of hand hygiene auditors was associated with an observation, in which human auditors Ontario, Canada 5 increase in hand hygiene events as measured by monitor the hand hygiene compliance of Department of Infection Prevention & Control, University a real-time location system (RTLS). HCWs as they carry out clinical tasks, is Health Network, Toronto, Methods The RTLS recorded all uses of alcohol- the most commonly used method of Ontario, Canada based hand rub and soap for 8 months in two measurement.
  • Field Experiments in Development Economics1 Esther Duflo Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Field Experiments in Development Economics1 Esther Duflo Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Field Experiments in Development Economics1 Esther Duflo Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Department of Economics and Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab) BREAD, CEPR, NBER January 2006 Prepared for the World Congress of the Econometric Society Abstract There is a long tradition in development economics of collecting original data to test specific hypotheses. Over the last 10 years, this tradition has merged with an expertise in setting up randomized field experiments, resulting in an increasingly large number of studies where an original experiment has been set up to test economic theories and hypotheses. This paper extracts some substantive and methodological lessons from such studies in three domains: incentives, social learning, and time-inconsistent preferences. The paper argues that we need both to continue testing existing theories and to start thinking of how the theories may be adapted to make sense of the field experiment results, many of which are starting to challenge them. This new framework could then guide a new round of experiments. 1 I would like to thank Richard Blundell, Joshua Angrist, Orazio Attanasio, Abhijit Banerjee, Tim Besley, Michael Kremer, Sendhil Mullainathan and Rohini Pande for comments on this paper and/or having been instrumental in shaping my views on these issues. I thank Neel Mukherjee and Kudzai Takavarasha for carefully reading and editing a previous draft. 1 There is a long tradition in development economics of collecting original data in order to test a specific economic hypothesis or to study a particular setting or institution. This is perhaps due to a conjunction of the lack of readily available high-quality, large-scale data sets commonly available in industrialized countries and the low cost of data collection in developing countries, though development economists also like to think that it has something to do with the mindset of many of them.
  • On Boundaries Between Field Experiment, Action Research and Design Research

    On Boundaries Between Field Experiment, Action Research and Design Research

    Pertti Järvinen On boundaries between field experiment, action research and design research UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES REPORTS IN INFORMATION SCIENCES 14 TAMPERE 2012 UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES REPORTS IN INFORMATION SCIENCES 14 JUNE 2012 Pertti Järvinen On boundaries between field experiment, action research and design research SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES FIN‐33014 UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE ISBN 978‐951‐44‐8883‐2 ISSN‐L 1799‐8158 ISSN 1799‐8158 On boundaries between field experiment, action research and design research Pertti Järvinen School of Information Sciences University of Tampere Abstract The practice-science gap is often emphasized during the last years. It has also had such a form as competition between relevance and rigor, although both must be taken care. The three research methods (field experiment, action research and design research) are sometimes recommended to be used interchangeable. But we shall show they are quite different. We try to analyze and describe their boundaries and division of labor between practitioners and researchers. We shall also correct some long-lasting misconceptions and propose some further research topic. Introduction Mathiassen and Nielsen (2008) studied the articles published in the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems during 20 years and found that empirical articles have a great share of the all the published articles. Majority of the authors are from the Scandinavian countries. This seems to show that practice is much appreciated among the Scandinavian researchers and practical emphasis is characteristic in the Scandinavian research culture. We shall in this paper consider three empirical research methods (field experiment, action research and design research).
  • Field Experiments: a Bridge Between Lab and Naturally-Occurring Data

    Field Experiments: a Bridge Between Lab and Naturally-Occurring Data

    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES FIELD EXPERIMENTS: A BRIDGE BETWEEN LAB AND NATURALLY-OCCURRING DATA John A. List Working Paper 12992 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12992 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 March 2007 *This study is based on plenary talks at the 2005 International Meetings of the Economic Science Association, the 2006 Canadian Economic Association, and the 2006 Australian Econometric Association meetings. The paper is written as an introduction to the BE-JEAP special issue on Field Experiments that I have edited; thus my focus is on the areas to which these studies contribute. Some of the arguments parallel those contained in my previous work, most notably the working paper version of Levitt and List (2006) and Harrison and List (2004). Don Fullerton, Dean Karlan, Charles Manski, and an anonymous reporter provided remarks that improved the study. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2007 by John A. List. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Field Experiments: A Bridge Between Lab and Naturally-Occurring Data John A. List NBER Working Paper No. 12992 March 2007 JEL No. C9,C90,C91,C92,C93,D01,H41,Q5,Q51 ABSTRACT Laboratory experiments have been used extensively in economics in the past several decades to lend both positive and normative insights into a myriad of important economic issues.
  • Benefits of 'Observer Effects': Lessons from the Field

    Benefits of 'Observer Effects': Lessons from the Field

    ARTICLE Q 357 Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the field R Qualitative Research Copyright © 2010 The Author(s) http:// qrj.sagepub.com vol. 10(3) 357–376 TORIN MONAHAN AND JILL A. FISHER Vanderbilt University , USA ABSTRACT This article responds to the criticism that ‘observer effects ’ in ethnographic research necessarily bias and possibly invalidate research findings. Instead of aspiring to distance and detachment, some of the greatest strengths of ethnographic research lie in cultivating close ties with others and collaboratively shaping discourses and practices in the field. Informants’ performances – however staged for or influenced by the observer – often reveal profound truths about social and/or cultural phenomena. To make this case, first we mobilize methodological insights from the field of science studies to illustrate the contingency and partiality of all knowledge and to challenge the notion that ethnography is less objective than other research methods. Second, we draw upon our ethnographic projects to illustrate the rich data that can be obtained from ‘staged performances ’ by informants. Finally, by detailing a few examples of questionable behavior on the part of informants, we challenge the fallacy that the presence of ethnographers will cause informants to self-censor. KEYWORDS : ethnography, Hawthorne effect, investigator bias, observer effects, reactivity, research methods, science studies, science and technology studies, staged performance A frequent criticism of ethnographic research is that ‘observer effects ’ will somehow bias and possibly invalidate research findings (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Spano, 2005) . Put simply, critics assert that the presence of a researcher will influence the behavior of those being studied, making it impossible for ethnographers to ever really document social phenomena in any accurate, let alone objective, way (Wilson, 1977) .
  • Power(Ful) Guidelines for Experimental Economists

    Power(Ful) Guidelines for Experimental Economists

    Power(ful) Guidelines for Experimental Economists Kathryn N. Vasilaky and J. Michelle Brock Abstract Statistical power is an important detail to consider in the design phase of any experi- ment. This note serves as a reference for experimental economists on power calculations. We synthesize many of the questions and issues frequently brought up regarding power calculations and the literature that surrounds that. We provide practical coded exam- ples and tools available for calculating power, and suggest when and how to report power calculations in published studies. Keywords: statistical power, experiments, design, significance. JEL Classification: C9. Contact details: J. Michelle Brock, Principal Economist, One Exchange Square, London, EC2A 2JN, UK Phone: +44 20 7338 7193; email: [email protected]. Kathryn N. Vasilaky is an Assistant Professor at California Polytechnic University and Research Affiliate at the Columbia University International Research Institute for Climate and Society. J. Michelle Brock is a Principal Economist at the EBRD and a Research Affiliate at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). Thanks to contributions from the ESA discussion forum. The working paper series has been produced to stimulate debate on the economic transition and develop- ment. Views presented are those of the authors and not necessarily of the EBRD. Working Paper No. 239 Prepared in December 2019 Power(ful) Guidelines for Experimental Economists ∗ Kathryn N Vasilaky y J Michelle Brock z December 19, 2019 Abstract Statistical power is an important detail to consider in the design phase of any experiment. This note serves as a reference on power calculations for experimental economists. We syn- thesize many of the questions and issues frequently brought up regarding power calculations and the literature that surrounds that.
  • Placebo and Hawthorne Effects in Development Programs

    Placebo and Hawthorne Effects in Development Programs

    International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Invisible treatments: placebo and Hawthorne effects in development programs Marie Gaarder (3ie); Edoardo Masset (IDS); Hugh Waddington; Howard White; Anjini Mishra, (3ie) Author name www.3ieimpact.org Invisible treatments…why bother? • If perceptions and reactions explain a significant part of measured intervention impacts then.. • ..we are over-stating impact of ‘the intervention’, so – There may be more cost-effective ways of attaining impacts – Sustainability of impacts and scaleability may be at risk Author name www.3ieimpact.org Study objectives • Systematically review the identified placebo and Hawthorne effects in effectiveness-studies of development interventions • Systematically analyse possible sources and consequences of placebo and Hawthorne effects in selected development sectors • identify the level of recognition of the effects among evaluators Author name www.3ieimpact.org A Placebo is… • From medicine: – …any therapy prescribed for its therapeutic effects, but which actually is ineffective or not specifically effective for the condition being treated – A placebo effect is the non-specific therapeutic effect produced by a placebo • Generalized: – …an effect that results from the belief in the treatment rather than the treatment itself – …a neutral treatment that has no "real" effect on the dependent variable – a participant's positive response to a placebo is called the placebo effect • To control for the placebo effect, researchers administer a neutral treatment (i.e., a
  • Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments

    Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments

    IZA DP No. 8583 Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments Charles Bellemare Luc Bissonnette Sabine Kröger October 2014 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments Charles Bellemare Laval University and IZA Luc Bissonnette Laval University Sabine Kröger Laval University and IZA Discussion Paper No. 8583 October 2014 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character.
  • Field Experiments in Strategy Research IZA DP No

    Field Experiments in Strategy Research IZA DP No

    IZA DP No. 8705 Field Experiments in Strategy Research Aaron K. Chatterji Michael Findley Nathan M. Jensen Stephan Meier Daniel Nielson December 2014 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Field Experiments in Strategy Research Aaron K. Chatterji Stephan Meier Duke University Columbia University and IZA Michael Findley Daniel Nielson University of Texas at Austin Brigham Young University Nathan M. Jensen Washington University in St. Louis Discussion Paper No. 8705 December 2014 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion.
  • Field Experiments on Discrimination∗

    Field Experiments on Discrimination∗

    Field Experiments on Discrimination∗ Prepared for the Handbook of Field Experiments Marianne Bertrandy Esther Dufloz This version: January 7, 2016 Abstract This article reviews the existing field experimentation literature on the prevalence of discrimination, the consequences of such discrimination, and possible approaches to under- mine it. We highlight key gaps in the literature and ripe opportunities for future field work. Section 1 reviews the various experimental methods that have been employed to measure the prevalence of discrimination, most notably audit and correspondence studies; it also describes several other measurement tools commonly used in lab-based work that deserve greater consideration in field research. Section 2 provides an overview of the literature on the costs of being stereotyped or discriminated against, with a focus on self-expectancy effects and self-fulfilling prophecies; section 2 also discusses the thin field-based literature on the consequences of limited diversity in organizations and groups. The final section of the paper, Section 3, reviews the evidence for policies and interventions aimed at weakening discrim- ination, covering role model and intergroup contact effects, as well as socio-cognitive and technological de-biasing strategies. ∗Laura Stilwell and Jan Zilinsky provided excellent research assistance. We thank Abhijit Banerjee for com- ments. We are particularly grateful to Betsy Levy Paluck, our discussant, for her detailed and thoughtful review of an earlier draft. yBertrand: University of Chicago Booth School of Business, NBER, and J-PAL (email: Mari- [email protected]). zDuflo: MIT Economics Department, NBER, and J-PAL (email: edufl[email protected]). 1 Introduction Black people are less likely to be employed, more likely to be arrested by the police, and more likely to be incarcerated.
  • Differential Hawthorne Effect by Cueing, Sex, and Relevance

    Differential Hawthorne Effect by Cueing, Sex, and Relevance

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1968 Differential Hawthorne Effect by Cueing, Sex, and Relevance Richard Carl Harris Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Harris, Richard Carl, "Differential Hawthorne Effect by Cueing, Sex, and Relevance" (1968). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 5648. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DIFFERENTIAL HAWTHORNE EFFECT BY CUEING, SEX, AND RELEVANCE by Richard Carl Harris, Jr. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE in Psychology Approved: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY wgan, Utah 1968 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNO; tLEDGMENTS • • • • • • • • • • ii LIST OF TABLES • • • • • • • • • iii LIST OF FIGURES • • • • • • • • • • iv ABSTRACT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • l Background of the Problem • • • • • • • l Statement of the Problem • • • • • 4 Purpose of the Study • • • • • • • • • 5 Definition of Terms • • • • • • • • • 5 REVIE . ~ OF THE LITERATURE • • • • • • • • • 7 Literature Related to Background • • • • 7 Literature Related to Problems • • • • • 9 PROCEDURE