A social behavior researcher interviews participants who are having financial difficulties. Participants reveal enough information during the interviews that the data can be interpreted as containing personally identifiable information (PII). The researcher finds one of the interviews too amusing to keep to themselves, so they share the entire interview with a friend who is unrelated to the study in any way. Discuss this scenario in 100 words. Did this researcher violate data or research ethics? If so, what data or research ethics principles apply here? What additional information would you need to make a decision if you believe the situation is ambiguous? What should this researcher have done differently, and what should they do differently in the future?

A social behavior researcher interviews participants who are having financial difficulties. Participants reveal enough information during the interviews that the data can be interpreted as containing personally identifiable information (PII). The researcher finds one of the interviews too amusing to keep to themselves, so they share the entire interview with a friend who is unrelated to the study in any way. Discuss this scenario in 100 words. Did this researcher violate data or research ethics? If so, what data or research ethics principles apply here? What additional information would you need to make a decision if you believe the situation is ambiguous? What should this researcher have done differently, and what should they do differently in the future?

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter7: Uncertainty

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 7.4P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

[Adverse Selection] Each of the two players receives an envelope, in which there is anamount of money that is equally distributed from $0, $1, $2, ..., $100. The amounts in twoenvelopes are independent. After receiving the envelope, each individual can check exactlyhow much money is put in his/her own envelope. Then each player has the option to exchangehis/her envelope for the other individual's prize. The decisions are made simultaneously. Ifboth individuals agree to exchange, then the envelopes are exchanged; otherwise, if at leastone player chooses not to exchange, each individual keeps his/her own envelope and receivesits attached sum of money.a. Model this game as a static Bayesian game (write the normal formrepresentation) and find the Bayesian Nash equilibrium.b. Consider a new game where the probability distribution of money in eachenvelope is changed. The amount is equal to $100 with probability 90%, and is equalto each number in $0, $1, $2, ... ,$99 with probability 0.1%.…
A risk-neutral plaintiff in a lawsuit must decide whether to settle a claim or go to trial. The defendants offer $50,000 to settle now. If the plaintiff does not settle, the plaintiff believes that the probability of winning at trial is 50% if the plaintiff wins, the amount awarded to the plaintiff is X Will the plaintif settle if x is $62,500? What if X-$250,000? What is the critical value of X that would make the plaintiff indifferent between setting and going to trial? it the plaintiff were risk averse instead of risk neutral, would this critical value of X be higher or lower? If the amount to be awarded at trial with a win (X) were $62,500, then the plaintiff would settle If the amount to be awarded at trial with a win (X) were $250,000, then the plaintiff would not settle The critical value of X that would make the plaintiff indifferent between settling and going to trial is $ (Enter your response using rounded to wo decimal places)
Suppose the equilibrium price for good quality used cars is $20,000. And the equilibrium price for poor quality used cars is $10,000. Assume a potential used car buyer has imperfect information as to the condition of any given used car. Assume this potential buyer believes the probability a given used car is good quality is .60 and the probability a given used car is low quality is .40. Assume the seller has perfect information on all cars in inventory. How does the informational imbalance result in adverse selection? a. The expectedprice offered by the buyer encourages the seller to sell a poor quality car. Hence only poor quality cars are sold, which harms sellers. b. The expected price offered by the buyer encourages the seller to sell a good quality car. Hence only good quality cars are sold, which harms buyers. c. The expected price offered by the buyer encourages the seller to sell a good quality car. Hence only good quality cars are sold, which harms sellers. d. The…
Suppose a municipality were considering a ban on sugary soft drinks. They estimate that 20% of the obesity in the city can be attributed to sugary soft drinks, and thus the ban would be expected to reduce obesity by 20%, citywide. Which measure corresponds to '20%? a. Odds ratio b. Population attributable proportion c. Cumulative incidence d. Relative risk e. Risk difference f. Attributable risk among the exposed
Consider the following steps: 1. Celia chooses how much care, x ∈ [0, 1], to take in programming her robot. This effort costs her x^2/2. 2. Nature chooses whether the robot steps on Peter’s pet salamander, leading to emotional harm to Peter of H > 0 (with probability 1 − x). If the robot does step on the salamander then there is a chance of π that Celia will be identified as the culprit. - If there is no accident (the salamander is not stepped on), then Celia’s payoff is V − x^2/2. Peter and Luke both get zero. - If there is an accident, but Celia is not identified as the culprit, then Celia gets V − x^2/2. Peter gets −H. Luke gets zero. - If there is an accident, and Celia is identified as the culprit, then Luke (the judge) decides a level of compensation D ∈ R+ for Celia to pay Peter. Celia gets V − (x^2)/2−D. Peter gets D−H. Luke gets −(βH−D)^2. h) What would β have to equal, in order for Celia to choose the socially optimal level of x in a Subgame Perfect Equilibrium ? We are…
Dr. Wexler displays her medical degree in her officewaiting room, hoping patients will be impressed thatshe attended a prestigious medical school. This isan example ofa. moral hazard.b. adverse selection.c. signaling.d. screening.
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages toV. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. Under a negligence standard, what is…
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages toV. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. Under a negligence standard, what are…
Use the following information for questions 12-14. Assume that there are two parties, I and V. I engages in an activity that tends to injure V. V and I both can take care to reduce the expected harm from accidents. Specifically, suppose that if I takes no care (i.e., spends $0 on accident precautions), expected injury to V is $25. If I spends $5 on accident precautions, however, the expected injury to V is reduced to $18. Further suppose that V has a choice between taking no care or spending $4 in care to avoid accidents. If V spends $4 in care, V’s expected harm falls by $2 regardless of the level of care that I takes. Assume that courts adopt the socially-optimal level of injurer care as the negligence standard. That is, if I takes less than the socially-optimal level of care, she will be found negligent and must pay for all damages to V. If I takes at least the socially optimal level of care, she will not have to compensate V for his damages. What is the Nash equilibrium of this…
Elena applies for private insurance and resents the number of questions asked on the application. She states that since the primary contribution of insurance companies is to pool the risk of many individuals, they should care less about the characteristics of any one applicant and more about increasing the number of the patients that they insure. Furthermore, she states, when she had insurance through her employer, she hardly had to answer any questions. Use economic reasoning to explain to Elena the insurance company's behavior
Consider the following steps Celia chooses how much care, x ∈ [0,1], to take in programming her robot. This effort costs her x^2/2. Nature chooses whether the robot steps on Peter’s pet salamander, leading to emotional harm to Peter of H > 0 (with probability 1 - x). If the robot does step on the salamander then there is a chance of π that Celia will be identified as the culprit. If there is no accident (the salamander is not stepped on), then Celia’s payoff is V - x^2/2. Peter and Luke both get zero. If there is an accident, but Celia is identified as the culprit, then Celia gets V - x^2/2. Peter gets -H. Luke gets zero. If there is an accident, and Celia is identified as the culprit, then Like (the judge) decides a level of compensation D ∈ R+ for Celia to pay Peter. Celia gets V - x^2/2 - D. Peter gets D - H. Luke gets −(βH - D)^2. f) Now we turn to social otimality rather than equilibrium. Consider the value judgement that the optimal level of care is…
Consider the following steps Celia chooses how much care, x ∈ [0,1], to take in programming her robot. This effort costs her x^2/2. Nature chooses whether the robot steps on Peter’s pet salamander, leading to emotional harm to Peter of H > 0 (with probability 1 - x). If the robot does step on the salamander then there is a chance of π that Celia will be identified as the culprit. If there is no accident (the salamander is not stepped on), then Celia’s payoff is V - x^2/2. Peter and Luke both get zero. If there is an accident, but Celia is identified as the culprit, then Celia gets V - x^2/2. Peter gets -H. Luke gets zero. If there is an accident, and Celia is identified as the culprit, then Like (the judge) decides a level of compensation D ∈ R+ for Celia to pay Peter. Celia gets V - x^2/2 - D. Peter gets D - H. Luke gets −(βH - D)^2. A) Draw a game tree to represent this model.