Can We Reduce Deception in Elite Field Experiments? Evidence from a Field Experiment with State Legislative Offices

Abstract

The use of deception is common in elite correspondence audit studies. Elite audit studies are a type of field experiment used by researchers to test for discrimination against vulnerable populations seeking to access government resources. These studies have provided invaluable insights, but they have done so at the cost of using deception. They have relied on identity, activity, and motivation deception. In addition, they request unnecessary work. Is there a less deceptive alternative? In this article, I present results from a field experiment with state legislative offices that minimize the use of deception. Consistent with elite correspondence audit studies, I find evidence of discrimination against Hispanics among state legislative offices. In addition, I find that discrimination is mitigated when subjects believe their behavior will be public knowledge. This suggests that discrimination can be mitigated through increased monitoring. This article advances the discussion on how to minimize the use of deception in elite field experimentation and how to mitigate discrimination against vulnerable populations.

Ethics of Field Experiments

“…As Nathan & White (2021) note, experimenting on street-level bureaucrats can present a risk of "diverting scarce bureaucratic time and resources away from real constituents." In some cases, these opportunity costs can be quantified, and even monetized (Landgrave 2020, Nathan & White 2021, Slough 2018. Slough (2018) timed the phone calls in her study on social welfare programs in Colombia and reports that the intervention consumed 200 hours of bureaucrats' time, with an estimated direct labor cost of $2,644 (US).…”

“…If researchers are not mindful about the ethics of field experiments, and if the discipline does not take seriously the concerns of others, then subjects, host communities, and partners might become unfit or unwilling to work with researchers, and the public might not trust political scientists to act ethically. Some researchers raise concerns about proper management of subject pools in terms of contamination or pollution (Landgrave 2020, Nathan & White 2021. For example, when discussing the problem of deception, Landgrave (2020, p. 501) notes, "The subject pool of elites is a common resource that we, as a discipline, must learn to share or risk destroying not only for ourselves but future researchers."…”

“…Public trust is a nebulous good, and it can be difficult to know what it looks like, how to measure it, or indeed, how to tell when it is gone. In some cases, signs that trust is eroding become evident [e.g., public officials becoming annoyed or fatigued by deceptive research (Landgrave 2020)]. In other cases, communities feel the need to protect themselves from researchers and develop their own code of conduct for researchers [e.g., the San people of Southern Africa (Schroeder et al 2019)].…”

Do political donors have greater access to government officials? Evidence from a FOIA field experiment with US municipalities

“…This study received IRB approval, but it is essential to discuss the ethics of our experiment given its use of deception. There is growing concern about field experiment ethics because of their use of deception, cost on unknowing subjects, and potential harm to the democratic process (Landgrave, 2020;Whitfield, 2019).…”

Do Politicians Ethnically Discriminate Against Hispanics? Evidence from a Field Experiment with State Legislative Offices

“…This study received Institutional Review Board approval, but its ethics requires special discussion because the treatment may be costly to subjects and it may crowd out legislators' time away from other aspects of the representation process (Desposato 2015; Landgrave 2020; Whitfield 2019). To reduce this concern, the sample was limited to 1,600, the minimum sample needed based on power analyses 4…”