Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:07:52.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2021

Michelangelo Landgrave Open the ORCID record for Michelangelo Landgrave [Opens in a new window]
Michelangelo Landgrave*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA
*
Corresponding Author: Michelangelo Landgrave, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Ave., Riverside, CA 92521, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

field experimentexperimental methodsmethodologydiscriminationrepresentationHispanic/Latino politicsidentity/group politicsresearch ethics
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 489 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alem, Yonas, Eggert, Hakan, Kocher, Martin G., and Ruhinduka, Remidius D. 2018. “Why (Field) Experiments on Unethical Behavior Are Important: Comparing Stated and Revealed Behavior.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 156:71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2012. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2019. Report of the APSA Ad-Hoc Committee on Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1993. “Can Inattentive Citizens Control Their Elected Representatives?” In Congress Reconsidered, eds. Dodd, Lawrence C., and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 401–16.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” The American Economic Review 94 (4): 991–1013..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1999. “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues 55 (3): 429–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M. 2014. Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M. 2019. “Facilitating Field Experiments at the Subnational Level.” The Journal of Politics 81 (1): 371–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Broockman, David E. 2011. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 463–77..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Crabtree, Charles. 2017. “Moving beyond Measurement: Adapting Audit Studies to Test Bias-Reducing Interventions.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 4 (1): 57–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., De Vries, Catherine E., and Solaz, Hector. 2019. “Studying Policy Diffusion at the Individual Level: Experiments on Nationalistic Biases in Information Seeking.” Research & Politics 6 (4): 1–7..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Pope, Jeremy C. 2012. “A Field Experiment on Legislators' Home Styles: Service versus Policy.” The Journal of Politics 74 (2): 474–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Kousser, Thad. 2015. “How Do Public Goods Providers Play Public Goods Games?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 211–40..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Pereira, Miguel M. 2018. “Are Donations to Charity an Effective Incentive for Public Officials?” Journal of Experimental Political Science 5 (1): 68–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Elizabeth. 2020. “Field Experiments and Behavioral Theories: Science and Ethics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (1): 89–93..Google Scholar
Carnes, Nicholas, and Holbein, John. 2019. “Do Public Officials Exhibit Social Class Biases When They Handle Casework? Evidence from Multiple Correspondence Experiments.” PLoS ONE 14 (3): e0214244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, David J. 2014. “A Note on Deception in Economic Experiments.” Journal of Wine Economics 9 (2): 111–14..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, Mia. 2017. “How Responsive Are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 4:241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMora, Stephanie L., Collingwood, Loren, and Ninci, Adriana. 2019. “The Role of Super Interest Groups in Public Policy Diffusion.” Policy & Politics 47 (4): 513–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desposato, Scott. 2015. Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditlmann, Ruth K., and Lagunes, Paul. 2014. “The (Identification) Cards You Are Dealt: Biased Treatment of Anglos and Latinos Using Municipal-Issued versus Unofficial ID Cards.” Political Psychology 35 (4): 539–55..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, Amanda, Cepaluni, Gabriel, de Sá Guimarães, Feliciano, and Spada, Paolo. 2018. “Prejudice, Strategic Discrimination, and the Electoral Connection: Evidence from a Pair of Field Experiments in Brazil.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (4): 781–95..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 627–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2016. “Transparency, Replication, and Cumulative Learning: What Experiments Alone Cannot Achieve.” Annual Review of Political Science 19 (1): S11–23..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynes, Adam M., Hassell, Hans J. G., and Miles, Matthew R. n.d. “Political Ambition and Constituent Service: Does Ambition Influence How Local Officials Respond to Electoral and Non-electoral Service Requests?” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Einstein, Katherine Levine, and Glick, David M. 2017. “Does Race Affect Access to Government Services? An Experiment Exploring Street-Level Bureaucrats and Access to Public Housing.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 100–16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enemark, Daniel, Gibson, Clark C., McCubbins, Mathew D., and Seim, Brigitte. 2016. “Effect of Holding Office on the Behavior of Politicians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (48): 13690–95..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enos, Ryan D. 2014. “Causal Effect of Intergroup Contact on Exclusionary Attitudes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (10): 3699–3704..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, Albert H., Guess, Andrew M., and Humphreys, Macartan. 2019. “Can the Government deter Discrimination? Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in New York City.” The Journal of Politics 81 (1): 127–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Leibbrandt, Andreas. 2011. “A Field Study on Cooperativeness and Impatience in the Tragedy of the Commons.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (9–10): 1144–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1990. Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation by Richard F. Fenno. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findley, Michael, Nielson, Daniel L., and Desposato, Scott. 2016. “Obligated to Deceive? Aliases, Confederates, and the Common Rule in International Field Experiments.” Ethics and Experiments. Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals, eds. Findley, Michael and Nielson, Daniel. New York: Routledge, 151–70.Google Scholar
Findley, Michael, Nielson, Daniel L., and Sharman, Jason C. 2013. “Using Field Experiments in International Relations: A Randomized Study of Anonymous Incorporation.” International Organization 67 (4): 657–93..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Samuel H., and Herrick, Rebekah. 2013. “Old versus New: The Comparative Efficiency of Mail and Internet Surveys of State Legislators.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13 (2): 147–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddis, S. Michael. 2018. “An Introduction to Audit Studies in the Social Sciences.” In Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance, ed. Gaddis, S. Michael. Cham: Springer, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Redman, Micah, Visalvanich, Neil, Crabtree, Charles, and Fariss, Christopher J. 2018. “It's All about Race: How State Legislators Respond to Immigrant Constituents.” Political Research Quarterly 71:517–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Giger, Nathalie, Lanz, Simon, and de Vries, Catherine. 2019. “The Motivational Basis of Constituency Work: How Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations Interact.” Political Science Research and Methods 1–16. Published electronically May 14. doi:10.1017/psrm.2019.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Laibson, David I., Scheinkman, Jose A., and Soutter, Christine L. 2000. “Measuring Trust.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 811–46..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Sona N., Crabtree, Charles, and Dhima, Kostanca. 2019. “Legislative Representation and Gender (Bias).” Political Science 71:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Ibáñez, José A., Tye, William B., and Winston, Clifford. 2011. Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy: A Handbook in Honor of John R. Meyer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 17:355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habel, Philip, and Birch, Sarah. 2019. “A Field Experiment on the Effects of Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status on the Quality of Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 44:389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Nir, Bornstein, Gary, and Sagiv, Lilach. 2008. “‘In-Group Love’ and ‘Out-Group Hate’ as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm.” Psychological Science 19 (4): 405–11..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Nir, Weisel, Ori, and Bornstein, Gary. 2012. “‘In-Group Love’ and ‘Out-Group Hate’ in Repeated Interaction between Groups.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25 (2): 188–95..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 2011. Representation and Institutional Design. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., Zechmeister, Elizabeth J., and Wang, Ding. 2019. “Terrorism, Gender, and the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Electoral Studies 61:102033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janusz, Andrew, and Lajevardi, Nazita. 2016. “The Political Marginalization of Latinos: Evidence from Three Field Experiments.” Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2799043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard. 1986. “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market.” The American Economic Review 76:728–41.Google Scholar
Kalla, Joshua, Rosenbluth, Frances, and Teele, Dawn Langan. 2018. “Are You My Mentor? A Field Experiment on Gender, Ethnicity, and Political Self-Starters.” The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 337–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, Dean S. 2005. “Using Experimental Economics to Measure Social Capital and Predict Financial Decisions.” American Economic Review 95 (5): 1688–99..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Judd B., Low, Corinne, and Sullivan, Colin. 2019. “Incentivized Resume Rating: Eliciting Employer Preferences without Deception.” National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sears, David O. 1981. “Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (3): 414–31..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1995. “Replication, Replication.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (3): 444–52..Google Scholar
Krawczyk, Michal. 2019. “What Should Be Regarded as Deception in Experimental Economics? Evidence from a Survey of Researchers and Subjects.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 79:110–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, Karl T., Moncrief, Gary, Niemi, Richard G., and Powell, Lynda W. 2006. “Full-Time, Part-Time, and Real Time: Explaining State Legislators' Perceptions of Time on the Job.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (3): 322–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagunes, Paul, and Pocasangre, Oscar. 2016. “Dynamic Transparency: An Audit of Mexico's Freedom of Information Act.” Public Administration 97:162–76.Google Scholar
Lajevardi, Nazita. 2018. “Access Denied: Exploring Muslim American Representation and Exclusion by State Legislators.” Politics, Groups, and Identities. Published electronically November 8. doi:10.1080/21565503.2018.1528161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. 2019. “Where Have the Respondents Gone? Perhaps We Ate Them All.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83:280–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowande, Kenneth, and Proctor, Andrew. 2019. “Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans.” American Journal of Political Science. Published electronically. doi:10.1111/ajps.12493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McClendon, Gwyneth H. 2016. “Race and Responsiveness: An Experiment with South African Politicians.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 3 (1): 60–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez, Matthew S. 2013. “Who Represents the Interests of Undocumented Immigrants? A Study of State Legislators.” Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2592754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez, Matthew S., and Grose, Christian R. 2018. “Doubling Down: Inequality in Responsiveness and the Policy Preferences of Elected Officials.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43:457–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miceli, Marcia P., Dozier, Janelle B., and Near, Janet P. 1991. “Blowing the Whistle on Data Fudging: A Controlled Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21 (4): 271–95..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, Gregory, Velasco, Rafael B., Contreras, Evelyn, and Rodrigues, Karina F. 2019. “Googling the Requester: Identity-Questing and Discrimination in Public Service Provision.” Governance 33 (2): 249–67..Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley, Mann, Leon, and Harter, Susan. 1965. “The Lost-Letter Technique: A Tool of Social Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (3): 437–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, Kevin. 2019. “The Limited Value of Non-replicable Field Experiments in Contexts with Low Temporal Validity.” Social Media + Society 5 (3): 1–4..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naurin, Elin, and Öhberg, Patrik. 2019. “Ethics in Elite Experiments: A Perspective of Officials and Voters.” British Journal of Political Science: 1–9. Published electronically April 12. doi:10.1017/S0007123418000583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neiman, Jayme. 2017. “The Impact of Education on Legislative Responsiveness in Three Field Experiments.” Cogent Social Sciences 3 (1): 1282034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peisakhin, Leonid. 2012. “Transparency and Corruption: Evidence from India.” The Journal of Law and Economics 55 (1): 129–49..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phadke, Sayali, and Desmarais, Bruce A. 2019. “Considering Network Effects in the Design and Analysis of Field Experiments on State Legislatures.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 19:451–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., Leonardi, Robert, and Nanetti, Raffaella Y. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rigdon, Mary, Ishii, Keiko, Watabe, Motoki, and Kitayama, Shinobu. 2009. “Minimal Social Cues in the Dictator Game.” Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (3): 358–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Melinda N. 2018. “Back-Channel Representation: A Study of the Strategic Communication of Senators with the US Department of Labor.” The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 240–53..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, Rafael Piñeiro, and Rossel, Cecilia. 2018. “A Field Experiment on Bureaucratic Discretionary Bias under FOI Laws.” Government Information Quarterly 35 (3): 418–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Jeff. 2010. “The Effects of Race and Grammar Quality on the Responsiveness of American State Legislators: A Field Experiment.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1986. “Soaking Poking, and Just Wallowing in It.” PS: Political Science & Politics 19 (4): 845–50..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1996. Drawing the Line: Legislative Ethics in the States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Siegelman, Peter, and Heckman, J. 1993. “The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods and Findings.” In Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, eds. Fix, Michael and Struyk, Raymond J. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 187–258.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Danielle M., and Sanders, Bailey K. 2019. “Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness.” Perspectives on Politics: 1–14. Published electronically November 26. doi:10.1017/S1537592719003414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuolo, Mike, Uggen, Christopher, and Lageson, Sarah. 2016. “Statistical Power in Experimental Audit Studies: Cautions and Calculations for Matched Tests with Nominal Outcomes.” Sociological Methods & Research 45 (2): 260–303..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuolo, Mike, Uggen, Christopher, and Lageson, Sarah. 2018. “To Match or Not to Match? Statistical and Substantive Considerations in Audit Design and Analysis.” In Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance, ed. Gaddis, S. Michael. Cham: Springer, 119–40.Google Scholar
Whitfield, Gregory. 2019. “Toward a Separate Ethics of Political Field Experiments.” Political Research Quarterly 72:527–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Sam, and Wilson, Rick K. 2007. “The Dictator Game, Fairness and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 655–68..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winking, Jeffrey, and Mizer, Nicholas. 2013. “Natural-Field Dictator Game Shows No Altruistic Giving.” Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (4): 288–93..CrossRefGoogle Scholar