Social media, job market outcomes, and ethics of field experiments, by Qiu, Chen, Cohn and Roth in PNAS

 One of the fun things about our paper published in today's PNAS is that, as a working paper, it prompted a vigorous discussion of the ethics of doing field experiments in economics.  We discuss this more fully in the published version, below:

J. Qiu, Y. Chen, A. Cohn, & A.E. Roth, Social media promotion improves job market outcomes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (19) e2528289123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2528289123 (2026). 

Abstract: Social media has transformed how academics disseminate research, but its effect on academic job outcomes remains unclear. Previous research has shown correlations between social media exposure and metrics like citation counts, but these relationships may be confounded by unobserved factors such as researcher quality or access to professional networks. We examine whether social media promotion causally affects job market outcomes in economics through a field experiment on Twitter (now X). We first collect tweets about job market papers from 519 candidates and post them from a dedicated account. We then randomize half of the posts to be quote-tweeted by established economists in the candidates’ fields, and measure the effects on both online visibility and hiring outcomes. We find that posts in the treatment group receive 441% more views and 303% more likes than those in the control group. Candidates whose posts were assigned to be quote-tweeted receive one additional flyout invitation compared to the control group average of 5.4 flyouts. Furthermore, women in the treatment group receive 0.9 more job offers than women in the control group, who receive 3 offers on average. Exploring mechanisms, we find that academic reputation drives these results, with stronger effects for quote-tweets from highly cited scholars and for candidates from top institutions. Our findings suggest social media promotion causally increases research visibility and improves academic job market outcomes.

 

  ...

"Ethical considerations.
"After the release of our working paper on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) on May 20, 2024, a vigorous discussion arose on both social and mainstream media, particularly on Twitter, about the ethics of our experiment and of field experiments more generally (e.g., ref. 30). The main concern suggested that job markets are essentially constant sum, so that randomly promoting some candidates through having their JMPs quote-tweeted by influencers would necessarily (and unethically) disadvantage both those who were in the control condition of the experiment and those who did not participate in the experiment.
 

"We understand the importance of considering the ethical implications of any experiment and that ethicality is connected to the underlying economics of the job market. In this latter respect, given the information friction and congestion in the interview process, job markets are unlikely to be constant sum. Aside from the possibility of welfare gains from improved match quality, we note that, typically in matching markets, many employers fail to fill all their positions while at the same time qualified candidates fail to find one, so that welfare can also be improved by filling more positions. [In the 2022–2023 job market, the total number of jobs listed on JOE was 3,608, including 933 (1,083) full-time academic jobs in (outside) the United States and 718 full-time nonacademic jobs (any location). On the supply side, 1,386 Ph.D. students and postdocs applied to at least one job through JOE from August to December 2022 (31).] In economics, the job market often has unfilled positions by the end of February, leading to a scramble round each year starting in March. Similarly, the annual National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for new physicians in the United States also leads to some positions being unfilled, despite having far more applicants than available positions. [For example, in 2024, 38,494 positions were offered to 44,853 active applicants and 2,510 positions were unfilled (6.5%), at the end of both the main match (a deferred acceptance algorithm, see ref. 32) and a centralized postmatch scramble called the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (33).]
 

"The phenomenon of unfilled positions in a thick labor market may reflect congestion in the interview process. In such a market, since many positions receive more applications than the number of candidates who can feasibly be interviewed, the matching of interviews to jobs may be imperfect in the sense that an employer can find that none of the people interviewed can be successfully hired, but could have filled the position if more appropriate interviewees had been chosen. To mitigate this issue, signaling mechanisms have been introduced in both the economics and medical markets to facilitate a better matching of interviewees and employers (29, 34). In our context, the quote-tweeting of JMPs may similarly serve to help employers find better matches with their selection of interviewees who can be hired.
 

"We also propose that highlighting suitable candidates from underrepresented groups for a position could potentially expand the overall number of job openings. A notable example is the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, implemented across multiple institutions including the University of Michigan and the University of California system. This program seeks to recruit future faculty members “with the potential to bring to their research and undergraduate teaching the critical perspective that comes from their nontraditional educational background or understanding of the experiences of groups historically underrepresented in higher education.” (See, e.g., https://presidentspostdoc.umich.edu/, retrieved on August 29, 2025.)
 

"Finally, we consider trends in the broader context of job search in evaluating the ethical considerations related to our study. Social media has become a common channel for academics to advertise the JMPs of their students. Thus, we are not introducing a new channel for candidate promotion, nor are we excluding others outside of our experiment from availing themselves of this channel. Our goal is to understand the extent to which this channel may create visibility or improve outcomes for job candidates, especially since not all candidates may have equal access. Our paper belongs to the class of natural field experiment (35), a class that has seen a growing number of studies in which field experiments are used to assess the effects of market interventions. [A natural field experiment is one “where the subjects do not know that they are in an experiment” (35). In our context, participants were told only that we would arrange for their JMPs to be tweeted, but not that there would be a quote-tweet treatment.] One of the main benefits of conducting a natural field experiment is that it minimizes possible Hawthorne effects (36). These studies are widely accepted and even recognized, with the 2019 Nobel Prize for experiments in development economics. If it is ethical for economists to use experiments to evaluate interventions in other markets, it should also be ethical for economists to study the market for economists. And if it is ethical to promote students who are on the job market, then it should be ethical to study the effects of such promotion.
 

"In sum, from a normative perspective (should scholars promote candidates?), we argue that such promotion can reduce information friction and job market congestion, potentially leading to more efficient matching. From a positive perspective (does promotion matter?), we demonstrate in Results that it increases candidate visibility and improves job market outcomes, especially for women who are traditionally underrepresented in economics." 

#############

Earlier (a blog post about reference 30, above): 

Saturday, June 8, 2024  The ethics of field experiments in Economics, in the Financial Times

 

The Cannabis Industry’s New Best Friend? President Trump

It's a sign of the times that this sensible administrative initiative makes me ask:  Has the Trump organization just invested in marijuana?

The NYT has the story:

The Cannabis Industry’s New Best Friend? President Trump
The administration’s decision to relax federal regulations on medical marijuana comes with big tax breaks for many cannabis companies, and could drive new investment in the budding sector.    By Ashley Southall

"By some measures, the legal cannabis industry is flowering. It has grown to around $30 billion today from less than $20 billion just six years ago. But investors have remained wary of its high taxes, marijuana’s illicit status at the federal level and the operational costs of complying with a patchwork of state regulations.

"Now the Trump administration is pushing major policy changes that could hand marijuana companies a huge windfall and unlock new investment in the industry.

"Last week, the government relaxed federal controls on medical marijuana. While that does not make medical marijuana legal under federal law, it moves the product from a class of highly addictive drugs, such as heroin, to a category of lower-risk medicines, like prescription Tylenol, that are overseen by the D.E.A. The Trump administration has also started a process to reclassify cannabis more broadly."

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Abortion Pill Access by Mail, Appeal to SCOTUS

 Is the state of Louisiana harmed if women living there can receive abortion pills by mail?

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Abortion Pill Access by Mail  The court order, in a lawsuit by the state of Louisiana, pauses a Food and Drug Administration regulation that greatly expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone. 
By Pam Belluck

"A federal appeals court issued a ruling on Friday temporarily halting the ability of abortion providers to prescribe pills using telemedicine and send them to patients by mail, blocking what has become a major avenue for women seeking abortions in recent years.

"The order comes in a case in which the state of Louisiana is suing the Food and Drug Administration, seeking to sharply curtail access to the abortion pill mifepristone. In the order, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Louisiana’s request for a temporary stay of the F.D.A.’s decision several years ago to remove a requirement that patients see a medical provider in person before the pills could be prescribed.

"The court order, citing Louisiana’s claims that making pills available by mail has allowed patients there to access the medication despite the state’s near-total abortion ban, said that “Louisiana has shown that it is irreparably harmed without a stay.”

"In April, a Federal District Court in Louisiana had declined to pause the availability of pills by mail, instead saying that the proceedings should be delayed until the F.D.A. completes a safety review of mifepristone that is underway and is expected to take until late this year."

#######

And here's the NYT on the appeal by pharma companies to the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court Asked to Restore Access to Abortion Pill by Mail  By Ann E. Marimow and Pam Belluck

 "Administration officials recently told The New York Times that the review would not be finished until the end of this year, a time frame that would fall after the midterm elections.

"The mifepristone case puts the Trump administration in a politically tricky position, given that many of President Trump’s supporters oppose abortion."

Amazon's list of best non-fiction books coming out in May

 Here is Amazon's list of  Best Nonfiction books of May. 

(You have to scroll to the right to see Moral Economics, but I'm still glad to see that it's there:)

Publication day is May 12, just over a week away. 

 

Introduction to market design and medicine: video of my public lecture in Taiwan

 Here's a video of the talk I gave in Taiwan on Markets, marketplaces and medicine. My talk begins at around minute 9:35, after introductions and photographs, and the camera focuses on me rather than on my slides, but I think you can follow the talk well even without seeing the slides.  A Q&A session begins at around minute 59:45, with the first question being about marriage (in which I get to quote Claudia Goldin on dads versus duds:)*

 ###########

* See, earlier

Tuesday, September 23, 2025  The Downside of Fertility by Claudia Goldin---Dads versus duds

 

Australia has more unpaid beekeepers than blood donors

 If only there were some way for Australia to become self-sufficient in blood plasma, so it could stop having to buy it from the US...

The Financial Times has the story:

Australia’s drive to get more blood flowing
The country has more recreational beekeepers than regular donors and is forced to rely on imports  by Nic Fildes 

" Australia needs 100,000 new donors every year to meet its need for blood and plasma. But there are more recreational beekeepers in Australia than people who have actively donated their blood three times or more.

"This is not only an Australian challenge. Most countries have a supply gap. One problem is that the legion of older donors that has kept donations flowing for decades is dwindling and younger generations are not donating or do not return after they’ve tried it once. 

...

"The situation is particularly acute for plasma — the yellow-coloured component of blood sometimes called liquid gold — which is a vital ingredient for 18 different life-saving procedures ranging from immune deficiency treatment to heart surgery. 

Australia supplies only 38 per cent of its own plasma and spends about A$600mn a year to import it — more than double what was spent a decade ago. A report published by the state of New South Wales suggests imports needed could rise to 66 per cent of the total by 2030, meaning taxpayers are set to foot an even larger plasma bill.

For now, Australia relies on the US, where people earn up to $70 per donation, which supplies about 70 per cent of the world’s plasma."

 

Stanford celebrates Ran Abramitzky's studies of immigration

 The Stanford Daily interviews Ran Abramitzky, on the occasion of his winning a Guggenheim fellowship:

Guggenheim fellow Ran Abramitzky sees the American Dream as an ‘intergenerational story’  By Angikar Ghosal

"TSD: Your research program combines economic history, big linked microdata and policy relevance. Where do you see the next frontier for this kind of long-run, data-driven immigration research?

RA: A key frontier is linking together large-scale datasets to follow individuals and families over time and across space.

Much of my work relies on linking millions of individuals across U.S. censuses to study mobility across generations. The next step is to connect these data to other sources — such as college records, administrative data, and historical archives — to better understand how specific institutions shape economic outcomes.

For example, we are digitizing and linking records for millions of college students and faculty from over 100 institutions and connecting them to census data to study how socioeconomic background shapes access to higher education and elite professions.

Another frontier is using new tools, including AI and large language models, to systematically analyze large bodies of text — such as congressional speeches — to better understand how policies and public narratives around immigration evolve over time.

TSD: Given the current political moment around immigration policy, what do you most wish the public understood from the historical evidence?

RA: A key lesson from the historical evidence is that immigrant mobility is a long-term, often intergenerational process.

Many immigrants initially work in manual or low-paying jobs and do not move quickly from poverty to prosperity. However, their children often experience substantial upward mobility despite a challenging start.

What I think is often missing in today’s policy debate is this long-term perspective. Discussions tend to focus on newly arrived immigrants and their short-run outcomes. But historically, much of the economic success of immigrant families has occurred in the next generation.

A more long-term view would recognize these patterns and the contributions of immigrants and their children, and could lead to policies that are more supportive of immigrant integration and opportunity."