Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Psychology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 31;15(1):e0227898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227898. eCollection 2020.
Millions of volunteers take part in clinical trials every year. This is unsurprising, given that clinical trials are often much more lucrative than other types of unskilled work. When clinical trials offer very high pay, however, some people consider them repugnant. To understand why, we asked 1,428 respondents to evaluate a hypothetical medical trial for a new Ebola vaccine offering three different payment amounts. Some respondents (27%) used very high pay (£10,000) as a cue to infer the potential risks the clinical trial posed. These respondents were also concerned that offering £10,000 was coercive- simply too profitable to pass up. Both perceived risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials shape how people evaluate these trials. This result was robust within and between respondents. The link between risk and repugnance may generalize to other markets in which parties are partially remunerated for the risk they take and contributes to a more complete understanding of why some market transactions appear repugnant.
每年都有数百万志愿者参与临床试验。考虑到临床试验通常比其他类型的非熟练工作报酬丰厚得多,这并不奇怪。然而,当临床试验提供非常高的报酬时,有些人认为它们令人反感。为了理解其中的原因,我们要求 1428 名受访者对一个提供三种不同报酬金额的新埃博拉疫苗的假设性临床试验进行评估。一些受访者(27%)使用非常高的报酬(10000 英镑)作为推断临床试验潜在风险的线索。这些受访者还担心提供 10000 英镑是强制性的——太有利可图了,无法拒绝。高报酬临床试验中的感知风险和强制因素影响了人们对这些试验的评估。这一结果在受访者内部和之间都是稳健的。风险和反感之间的联系可能会推广到其他部分报酬是参与者承担风险的市场,有助于更全面地理解为什么某些市场交易看起来令人反感。