Abstract
Many randomized controlled trials require participants to opt in. Such self-selection could introduce a potential bias, because only the most optimistic may participate. We revisit this prediction. We argue that in many situations, the experimental intervention is competing with alternative interventions participants could conduct themselves outside the experiment. Since participants have a chance of being assigned to the control group, participating has a direct opportunity cost, which is likely to be higher for optimists. We propose a model of self-selection and show that both pessimists and optimists may opt out of the experiment, leading to an ambiguous selection bias.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 326-328 |
Journal | Economics Letters |
Volume | 124 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 13 Jun 2014 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Sept 2014 |
Keywords
- Field experiments
- Selection bias
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A new perspective on the issue of selection bias into randomized controlled field experiments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Jonathan James
- Department of Economics - Senior Lecturer
- Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy and Society (CASPS)
- Labour, Education and Health Economics
- Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG)
- Centre for 21st Century Public Health
Person: Research & Teaching, Core staff