ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening research preparedness for crises: lessons from Norwegian government agencies in using randomized trials and quasi-experimental methods to evaluate public policy interventions.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Aversion to pragmatic randomised controlled trials: three survey experiments with clinicians and laypeople in the USA.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Experiment aversion does generalize, but it can also be mitigated.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Reply to Vogt et al.: What does it mean that a phenomenon generalizes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Reply to Bas et al.: The difference between a genuine tendency and a context-specific response.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- No evidence that experiment aversion is not a robust empirical phenomenon.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Experiment aversion does not appear to generalize.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We resolve a controversy over two competing hypotheses about why people object to randomized experiments: 1) People unsurprisingly object to experiments only when they object to a policy or treatment the experiment contains, or 2) people can paradoxically object to experiments even when they approve of implementing either condition for everyone. Using multiple measures of preference and test criteria in five preregistered within-subjects studies with 1,955 participants, we find that people often disapprove of experiments involving randomization despite approving of the policies or treatments to be tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.