Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments.

ABSTRACT: Randomized experiments have enormous potential to improve human welfare in many domains, including healthcare, education, finance, and public policy. However, such "A/B tests" are often criticized on ethical grounds even as similar, untested interventions are implemented without objection. We find robust evidence across 16 studies of 5,873 participants from three diverse populations spanning nine domains-from healthcare to autonomous vehicle design to poverty reduction-that people frequently rate A/B tests designed to establish the comparative effectiveness of two policies or treatments as inappropriate even when universally implementing either A or B, untested, is seen as appropriate. This "A/B effect" is as strong among those with higher educational attainment and science literacy and am

SUBMITTER: Meyer MN 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6561206 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature