Below you will find a list of Data Colada Seminars that took place in 2020, ordered from most to least recent. Most of these past seminars can be viewed on our YouTube Channel.
Friday, May 7th, 2021
Jesse Singal (.htm)
Title: The Quick Fix: Why Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills
Panel: Yoel Inbar and Alexa Tullett
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/Hr7QNtatZJ0
Friday, April 30th, 2021
Deborah Small (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Nudging Consumers To Publicize Their Donations To Charity
Abstract: Due to the power of social influence, donors could amplify their impact by sharing about their donations. However, when deciding whether to tell others about their generosity, donors often overlook the social impact of sharing and instead focus on possible risks to their reputation (e.g., of seeming braggy, inauthentic). In a large pre-registered field experiment, we tested a brief post-donation intervention designed to encourage word-of-mouth by re-orienting donors to the social impact case for sharing. After donating, 80,679 donors to an education non-profit received either a control or a treatment message asking them to share a link to the cause via social media, text, or email. Compared to the organization’s standard solicitation (‘Please share your donation…’), our intervention emphasized the consequences of sharing for the cause (‘Your donation can start a chain reaction…’). This message increased click-through by 4.8%, likelihood of recruiting at least one later donation by 11.6%, and funds raised via social influence by 15.2% per donor treated. While many field experiments aim to increase donation rates or magnitudes, we show that thoughtful marketing can also exogenously influence word-of-mouth, and we discuss approaches for encouraging sharing in the domain of charity and beyond.
Panel: Bethany Burum, Lucius Caviola, Shereen Chaudhry, Ioannis Evangelidis, Ike Silver, and Rima Toure-Tillery
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/r1H7HEJa2ug
Friday, April 23rd, 2021
Leif Nelson (.htm) – University of California, Berkeley
Title: The Value of Replications in the Behavioral and Consumer Sciences
Abstract: A primary goal of behavioral science is to collect true facts about people. If our experimental claims are true, then we should be able to make predictions about how people will behave. The easiest prediction to make is that people will behave similarly in a replication experiment as they did in the original. In this regard, replicability is our best proxy for the truth of a claim. I report two large projects designed to turn the lens of replication onto the subject of consumer research. In one (N = 17,481), replication experiments give a window into multiple potential threats to the validity of claims in consumer research, including that of non-replication. In another, we conduct many replications to develop and empirical audit of research on the psychological consequences of scarcity (N = 12,366). We identify which elements of that active literature are replicable, and which are not. We forward this empirical approach as an alternative to qualitative review or meta-analysis. Replications are a valuable and necessary tool for advancing behavioral and consumer sciences.
Panel: Jessica Flake, Don Moore, Mike O'Donnell, and Liz Tenney
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/DflbIVB2MH0
Friday, April 9th, 2021
Joshua Lewis (.htm) – New York University
Title: A New Direction For Anchoring
Abstract: People’s estimates of unknown quantities tend to be higher after previously considering a high value (or “anchor”) than after considering a low value. Researchers attempting to explain this “anchoring effect” have emphasized how anchors often prompt people to engage in “insufficient adjustment,” whereby people adjust downwards (but insufficiently) from high anchors and upwards (but insufficiently) from low anchors. In our research, we find that people engage not only in insufficient adjustment, but often in wrong-way adjustments as well. The mere act of considering a high anchor leads people to entertain the possibility that the correct answer might be even higher, and the mere act of considering a low anchor leads people to entertain the possibility that the right answer might be even lower. As a consequence, anchors can lead people to adjust higher from high anchors and lower from low anchors, which, of course, increases the size of anchoring effects. In Study 1, we elicit both anchored and unanchored estimates of the same quantities from the same people, and we find that a sizable proportion of them – roughly 20% – adjust the “wrong way” from anchor values. In Studies 2 and 3, we find that this tendency is predictable. People are more likely to adjust upwards from high anchors for quantities that are intuitively large (e.g., the weight of an elephant) and to adjust downwards for small anchors for quantities that are intuitively small (e.g., the weight of a mouse). In Study 3, we further show that this effect has implications for consumer purchase decisions.
Panel: Clayton Critcher, Derek Koehler, Julia Minson, Hannah Perfecto, and Dan Schley
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/rwZbw4lJLAc
Friday, April 2nd, 2021
Abigail Sussman (.htm) – University of Chicago
Title: A Preference for Costly Disclosures
Abstract: We identify a consumer preference for information disclosure that is ultimately costly to consumers (a preference for costly disclosures). We examine the impact of additional (but in fact irrelevant) information in price disclosures, operationalized as price disaggregation (i.e., separating charges into multiple line items). Across a variety of products, we find: (1) most consumers prefer disaggregated, rather than consolidated, price disclosures; (2) disaggregated price disclosure can be harmful to consumers, as consumers are more likely to choose financially dominated options (higher priced but not higher quality) when presented with disaggregated price disclosures; and (3) these results are not artifacts of mismatched preferences, as consumers’ preferences for disclosure type are uncorrelated with the likelihood they choose financially dominated options. Furthermore, while consumers perceive disaggregated prices as more complex, they also tend to believe that disaggregation facilitates the selection of lower-price options and signals firm transparency. These results suggest that consumers perceive benefits from disaggregated price disclosures but also commit computational errors while believing they will not. In addition, these results identify consumer preferences as a novel factor enabling price shrouding, suggesting that firms could use disaggregation to shroud prices while signaling transparency and trustworthiness.
Panel: Robyn LeBoeuf, Shelle Santana, Suzanne Shu, Shannon White, and Gal Zauberman
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/sYsG2Ov5xtI
Friday, March 26th, 2021
Geoff Goodwin (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: People Make Sub-optimal Moral Decisions About Euthanizing Humans As Compared With Animals
Abstract: “Mercy killing” is an unproblematic concept when used to justify the active killing (euthanasia) of animals in extreme pain that would die anyway. It seems humane because it alleviates suffering and is therefore in the animals’ best interests. Do people similarly believe that actively killing humans in intractable, terminal pain is morally preferable to passively allowing them to die? In this research, we document a pattern of perverse judgments in which active (vs. passive) killing is judged to be in the best interests of both human and animal sufferers, yet morally preferable only for animals. Paradoxically, it seems that precisely because humans are judged to have especially high moral status, they are subject to moral decisions that violate their best interests.
Panel: Paul Bloom, Ana Gantman, Chelsea Helion, David Pizarro, and Gracie Reinecke
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/r8fDDYm1-S0
Friday, March 19th, 2021
Joe Hilgard (.htm) – Illinois State University
Title: Making Science Self-Correcting
Abstract: Self-correction is commonly praised as a strength of the scientific method: Over time, errors will be detected, corrected, and replaced by more accurate results. Attractive in principle, the practical reality of trying to correct the scientific literature leaves much to be desired. In this talk, I discuss some techniques for identifying erroneous claims. I describe the responses from authors, universities, and journal editors, both helpful and unhelpful. I conclude with suggestions to help science live up to its promises of self-correction.
Panel: Nick Brown, Malte Elson, Julia Haaf, James Heathers, and Alice Moon
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/N7Iclo89FYQ
Friday, March 12th, 2021
Leslie John (.htm) – Harvard University
Title: Joy and Rigor in Behavioral Science
Abstract: In the past decade, behavioral science has seen the introduction of beneficial reforms to reduce false positive results. Serving as the motivational backdrop for the present research, we wondered whether these reforms might have unintended negative consequences on researchers’ behavior and emotional experiences. In an experiment simulating the research process, Study 1 (N=449 researchers) suggested that engaging in a pre-registration task impeded the discovery of an interesting but non-hypothesized result. Study 2 (N=404 researchers) indicated that relative to confirmatory research, researchers found exploratory research more enjoyable, motivating, and interesting; and less anxiety-inducing, frustrating, boring, and scientific. These studies raise the possibility that emphasizing confirmation can shift researchers away from exploration, and that such a shift could degrade the subjective experience of conducting research. Study 3 (N=314 researchers) introduced a scale to measure “prediction preoccupation”—the feeling of heightened concern over, and fixation with, confirming predictions.
Panel: Dana Carney, Jana Gallus, Yoel Inbar, and Alexa Tullett
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/y31G63iw2xw
Friday, March 5th, 2021
Keith Chen (.htm) – UCLA
Title: Investigating Partisan Cognition and Behavior Using Smartphone Data
Abstract: Mistrust of scientific evidence and government-issued guidelines is increasingly correlated with political affiliation. Survey evidence has documented skepticism in a diverse set of issues including climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and, most recently, COVID-19 risks. Less well understood is whether these beliefs alter high-stakes behavior. Combining GPS data for 2.7 million smartphone users in Florida and Texas with 2016 U.S. presidential election precinct-level results, we examine how conservative-media dismissals of hurricane advisories in 2017 influenced evacuation decisions. Likely Trump-voting Florida residents were 10 to 11 percentage points less likely to evacuate Hurricane Irma than Clinton voters (34% versus 45%), a gap not present in prior hurricanes. Results are robust to fine-grain geographic controls, which compare likely Clinton and Trump voters living within 150m of each other. The rapid surge in media-led suspicion of hurricane forecasts—and the resulting divide in self-protective measures—illustrates a large behavioral consequence of science denialism.
Panel: Dorothy Kronick, Abhishek Nagaraj, and Ricardo Perez-Truglia
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/4GT6pTIIfUs
Friday, February 26th, 2021
Liz Tenney (.htm) – University of Utah
Title: Amplifying Voice in Organizations
Abstract: In theory, when employees voice suggestions for organizational improvement, they should not only contribute to organizational success but also gain status. In practice, however, voicers can go unrecognized and underutilized. Previous research has largely looked to voicer-supervisor relationships to explain and rectify this issue. We investigate how employees can help peers get a status boost from voicing, while also raising their own status, by introducing the concept of amplification—public endorsement of another person’s contribution, with attribution to that person. In two experiments and one field study, we find that amplification enhances status both for voicers and for those who amplify voice. Being amplified was equally beneficial for voicers who framed their ideas promotively (improvement-focused) and prohibitively (problem-focused; Study 1), and for men and women (Study 2). Furthermore, amplified ideas were rated as higher quality than nonamplified ideas. Amplification also helped amplifiers: participants reading experimentally manipulated meeting transcripts rated amplifiers as higher status than those who self-promoted, stayed quiet, or contributed additional ideas (Studies 1 and 2). Finally, in an intervention in a nonprofit organization, select employees trained to use amplification attained higher status in their work groups (Study 3). In all, these results increase our understanding of how social actors can capitalize on instances of voice to give a status boost to voicers who might otherwise be overlooked, and help organizations realize the potential of employees’ diverse perspectives.
Panel: Kristin Bain, Joey Cheng, Crystal Farh, Tamar Kreps, Elizabeth Morrison, and Nathan Podsakoff
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/1ik7I_-bUJo
Friday, February 19th, 2021
Quentin André (.htm) – University of Colorado
Title: Can Consumers Learn Price Dispersion? Evidence for Dispersion Spillover Across Categories
Abstract: Dispersion knowledge—the beliefs that consumers have about the minimum, the maximum, and the overall variability of values in a distribution—is a key antecedent of many judgments and decisions. In this talk, I will present the results of multiple studies examining people’s ability to form accurate dispersion knowledge. I will first describe a phenomenon we call dispersion spillover: Seeing more (vs. less) dispersed prices in one category inflates people’s perception of price dispersion in another category. I will then highlight marketplace implications of this dispersion spillover, and present evidence that it can influence judgments of price attractiveness, the likelihood that people will search for (and find) better options, and how much people bid in auctions. Finally, I will discuss what this bias reveals about the mental representations underpinning dispersion knowledge.
Panel: Craig McKenzie, Ellen Peters, Nicholas Reinholtz, Jennifer Trueblood, and Stijn van Osselaer
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/KhqY8D-8BLM
Friday, February 12th, 2021
Gal Zauberman (.htm) – Yale University
Title: When is Too Few a Bias? The Impact of Political Ideology on Perceptions of Fairness in Outcomes
Abstract: It is common to observe claims that an organization, a group, or a person is biased towards some other group. We frequently see headlines like “Google, like most Silicon Valley companies, has a big diversity problem,” or “Democrats dominate most [academic] fields.” Such claims often compare an under/over representation of a particular group to some baseline (e.g., the base-rate in the population). That is, individuals form a judgment about bias by observing a distributional outcome. The present work examines how individuals come to judge distributional imbalances as representing bias —in hiring decisions, admissions decisions, and so on—and whether these judgments depend on their political ideology (specifically, the degree to which evaluators are liberal vs. conservative). In addition to testing the impact of ideology on judgments of bias, we also use this context to illustrate the importance of stimulus sampling and selecting the right controls when studying such topics.This work is co-authored with Ryan Hauser and Jin Kim.
Panel: Ellen Evers, Ayelet Fishbach, Jin Kim, Deb Small, and Leaf Van Boven
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/rHfUxHCxB5M
Friday, February 5th, 2021
Dorothy Kronick (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: Do Shifts In Late-Counted Votes Signal Fraud? Evidence From Bolivia
Abstract: Surprising trends in late-counted votes can spark conflict. When late-counted votes led to a narrow incumbent victory in Bolivia last year, fraud accusations followed—with dramatic political consequences. We study the pro-incumbent shift in vote share as the tally progressed, finding that we can explain it without invoking fraud. Two observable characteristics, rurality and region, account for most of the trend. And what looked like a late-breaking surge in the incumbent’s vote share—which electoral observers presented as evidence of foul play—was actually an artifact of methodological and coding errors. Our findings underscore the importance of documenting innocuous explanations for differences between early- and late-counted votes.
Panel: Santiago Anria, Ernesto Calvo, Justin Grimmer, Lauren Prather, and Rocío Titiunik
Friday, January 22nd, 2021
Jen Dannals (.htm) – Dartmouth College
Title: Perceiving Social Norms in Groups
Abstract: Social norm perception is ubiquitous in groups and teams, but how individuals approach this process is not well understood. When individuals wish to perceive descriptive social norms in a group or team, whose advice and behavior do they prefer to rely on? Four lab studies and one field study demonstrate that when individuals seek information about a team’s social norms they prefer to receive advice from lower-ranking individuals (Studies 1-4) and give greater weight to the observed behavior of lower-ranking individuals (Study 5). Results from correlation (Study 3) and moderation (Study 4) approaches suggest this preference stems from the assumption that lower-ranking team members are more attentive to and aware of the descriptive social norms of their team. Alternative mechanisms (e.g., perceived similarity to lower-ranking team members, greater honesty of lower-ranking team members) were also examined, but no support for these was found.
Panel: David Dunning, Daniel Feiler, and Emily Reit
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/FuF8oTCm36A
NOVEMBER 20, 2020
Etan Green (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: The Science of the Deal
Abstract: We train an algorithm to bargain optimally in "Best Offer" listings on eBay, as either a buyer or a seller. This talk focuses on the algorithmic seller, which rejects first offers at far higher rates than human sellers—especially when the first offer is generous. Whereas human sellers tend to accept generous first offers, the algorithmic seller rejects them because they signal a willingness to pay more. Human buyers, especially those who make generous first offers, often respond to rejection by paying full price. Human sellers ignore this relationship and leave money on the table.
Panel: Hamsa Bastani, Colin Camerer, Jake Hofman, Don Moore, Ziad Obermeyer, and Barry Plunkett
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/0vEipn6FcUk
NOVEMBER 13, 2020
Juliana Schroeder (.htm) – University of California, Berkeley
Title: Demeaning: Dehumanizing Others by Minimizing the Importance of Their Psychological Needs
Abstract: We document a tendency to demean others’ needs: believing that psychological needs—those requiring mental capacity, and hence more uniquely human (e.g., need for meaning and autonomy)—are relatively less important to others compared with physical needs—those shared with other biological agents, and hence more animalistic (e.g., need for food and sleep). Because valuing psychological needs requires a sophisticated humanlike mind, agents presumed to have relatively weaker mental capacities should also be presumed to value psychological needs less compared with biological needs. Supporting this, our studies found that people demeaned the needs of nonhuman animals (e.g., chimpanzees) and historically dehumanized groups (e.g., drug addicts) more than the needs of close friends or oneself (Studies 1 and 3). Because mental capacities are more readily recognized through introspection than by external observation, people also demean peers’ needs more than their own, inferring that one’s own behavior is guided more strongly by psychological needs than identical behavior in others (Study 4). Two additional experiments suggest that demeaning could be a systematic error (Studies 5 and 6), as charity donors and students underestimated the importance of homeless people’s psychological (vs. physical) needs compared with self-reports and choices from homeless people. Underestimating the importance of others’ psychological needs could impair the ability to help others. These experiments indicate that demeaning is a unique facet of dehumanization reflecting a reliable, consequential, and potentially mistaken understanding of others’ minds.
Panel: Nick Epley, Eli Finkel, Deb Gruenfeld, Ashley Martin, and Mary Steffel
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/RaIdKSewxk0
OCTOBER 23, 2020
Rebecca Schaumberg (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: Shame On You, Makes No Fool Out of Me: The Social Learning Effects of Shame
Abstract: Does shame serve a moral function? Past work has addressed this question by looking at the intra-individual effects of shame. In the face of weak evidence that shame effectively regulates behavior in line with normative standards, pessimistic conclusions have been drawn about shame’s moral function. Rather than focusing on how shame affects the person who experiences it, we take a social learning perspective on shame. By focusing on the consequences of a person’s shame for other people who witness it, our findings suggest a more affirmative answer to the opening question. In a series of experiments, we show that people infer stronger injunctive norms against a workplace behavior, and report greater behavioral intentions to avoid the behavior, when they see someone feel ashamed in response to the behavior compared to a neutral emotion or anger. We further find that a target’s expression of shame in response to a novel behavior motivates other people to avoid this behavior, even when this avoidance carries a personal financial cost. Finally, we find that expressing shame about a behavior can convey similar information about group norms as does being shamed by a third-party. Overall, these findings suggest that shame communicates information about a group’s values, thereby serving a critical role in socialization, norm acquisition, and behavior regulation.
Panel: Geoff Goodwin, Jessica Kennedy, Sam Skowronek, Eric VanEpps, and Jeremy Yip
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/OWwMTd0L4p4
OCTOBER 16, 2020
Alex Todorov (.htm) – University of Chicago
Title: Is The Structure of Social Judgments From Faces Universal? Some Methodological Reflections
Abstract: In 2008, we proposed a simple 2-dimensional model, according to which faces are evaluated on perceived valence and power (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008). A recent large cross-cultural replication (N = 11,481; 11 world regions; Jones et al., 2020) tested whether this 2D model generalizes to world regions. When the original analysis – principal components analysis (PCA) – was implemented, the model generalized across world regions. However, when an alternative analysis – exploratory factor analysis (EFA) – was implemented, it appeared that the model didn’t generalize. One disconcerting implication of this discrepancy is that whether one observers cross-cultural universality or not is a function of arbitrary analytic choices. However, an inspection of the input data (the pairwise correlations of judgments) to both PCA and EFA shows striking consistency across cultures. How is it that the same highly convergent input data lead to divergent analytic solutions? I discuss differences between PCA and EFA and well-known indeterminacies in EFA solutions. A principled approach that minimizes the role of statistical noise is to decide a priori on testing a 2D model and to align the data using a Procrustes rotation. When these procedures are implemented, the 2D model generalizes across cultures irrespective of analytic choices. Bootstrapping simulations show that this generalization is extremely unlikely to be an artifact of the rotation procedure. I argue that when analytic choices are properly specified, different analyses should converge in terms of broad claims about differences, similarity, and universality.
Panel: Jon Freeman, DongWon Oh, Alice O'Toole, Clare Sutherland, and Mirella Walker
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/Vd0qQzN596g
OCTOBER 9, 2020
Maya Bar Hillel (.htm) – Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Title: The False Allure of Fast Lures
Abstract: The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) allegedly measures the tendency to override the prepotent incorrect answers to some special problems, and to engage in further reflection. A growing literature suggests that the CRT is a powerful predictor of performance in a wide range of tasks. This research has mostly glossed over the fact that the CRT is composed of math problems. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether numerical CRT items do indeed call upon more than is required by standard math problems, and whether the latter predict performancein other tasks as well as the CRT. In Study 1 we selected from a bank of standard math problems items that, like CRT items, have a fast lure, as well as others which do not. A 1-factormodel was the best supported measurement model for the underlying abilities required by all three item types. Moreover, the quality of all these items – CRT and math problems alike – as predictors of performance on a set of choice and reasoning tasks did not depend on whether or not they had a fast lure, but rather only on their quality as math items. In other words, CRT items seem not to be a “special” category of math problems, although they are quite excellent ones. Study 2 replicated these results with a different population and a different set of math problems.
Panel: David Budescu, Jason Dana, Shane Frederick, Celia Gaertig, Daniel Kahneman, and Deborah Small
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/udA3MfUkLvk
OCTOBER 2, 2020
Jason Dana (.htm) – Yale University
Title: Efficiency Neglect Causes Economic Pessimism Among Americans
Abstract: We find large and persistent errors in cost-of-living perceptions. Subjects believe that a variety of grocery and consumer durable items require increasing amounts of labor to purchase, when in fact they require less. We identify "efficiency neglect" as a cause: People focus on scarcity and neglect their own beliefs about innovation when thinking about the trajectory of cost-of-living. We consider how these beliefs impact attitudes regarding immigration policy.
Panel: Cindy Cryder, Sam Johnson, George Newman, Sydney Scott, and Guy Voichek
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/oXzi_Ubn5j0
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
Devin Pope (.htm) – University of Chicago
Title: Unveiling the Law of Demand Using a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment
Abstract: Perhaps the most fundamental tenet in economics is the Law of Demand. Previous theoretical work and laboratory experiments reveal that even markets populated by irrational (“behavioral”) consumers yield the Law of Demand at the market level. We approach the problem in a fundamentally different manner—rather than showing existence of the Law under varying behavioral assumptions, we embrace a well-known behavioral bias—left-digit bias—to measure its “behavioral contribution” to the Law of Demand. Combining a natural field experiment that included over 21 million Lyft passengers with observational data from over 600 million Lyft rides, we report four key insights. First, the Law of Demand consistently holds in the overall market data. Second, the “behavioral contribution” to the Law of Demand (effects of price changes from $12.00 to $11.99, for example) is responsible for roughly half of the downward slope of the demand curve, even though such changes are only 1/100th of the overall price variation. Third, relative behavioral contributions are similar when estimating cross-price elasticities between Lyft's main products. Fourth, fully accounting for left-digit bias in pricing can generate up to $40.5 million annually in additional profit for Lyft. Our overarching scientific message is that fundamental tenets in economics might have deeper behavioral underpinnings than most believe.
Panel: Christine Exley, Tatiana Homonoff, Kelly Shue, and Richard Thaler
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/9uUPd313vYk
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
Michael Norton (.htm) – Harvard University
Title: The Psychology of Ritual
Abstract: Rituals are ubiquitous in our personal lives – enacted before performances or during family holidays – and in our interactions with firms – from sports fans doing the “wave” to customers being served wine after an elaborate uncorking. Our research has documented the benefits of rituals in domains ranging from grief recovery to chocolate consumption to team performance to singing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing.” And, we have identified the psychological underpinnings of rituals, demonstrating how they can lead to increased immersion in experiences, greater feelings of control, reduced anxiety, and increased liking for teammates.
Panel: Mickey Inzlicht, Alice Moon, Jane Risen, and Kathleen Vohs
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/lucMnR8tYog
JULY 31, 2020
Elisabeth Bik (.htm) – Harbers-Bik LLC
Title: The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research
Abstract: Science builds upon science. Even after peer-review and publication, science papers could still contain images or other data of concern. If not addressed post-publication, papers containing incorrect or even falsified data could lead to wasted time and money spent by other researchers trying to reproduce those results. Several high-profile science misconduct cases have been described, but many cases are yet undetected. Elisabeth Bik is an image forensics detective who left her paid job in industry to search for and report duplicated and manipulated images in biomedical articles. She has done a systematic scan of 20,000 papers in 40 journals and found that about 4% of these contained inappropriately duplicated images. In her talk she will present her work and show several types of inappropriately duplicated images. In addition, she will show how to report scientific papers of concern, and how journals and institutions handle such allegations.
Panel: Mike Eisen, Ellen Evers, Alexandra Nelson, and Ed Vul
Link To Video: Unavailable
JULY 24, 2020
Stephanie Tully (.htm) – Stanford University
Title: Psychological Ownership of (Borrowed) Money
Abstract: Borrowing can help consumers facing liquidity constraints, but unnecessary borrowing can pose problems for consumer and societal welfare. This work establishes the concept of psychological ownership of borrowed money, the extent to which consumers see borrowed money as their own money. We demonstrate that both individual-level and contextual-level variation in the degree to which consumers feel psychological ownership of borrowed money explains people's willingness to borrow. Moreover, we show that psychological ownership of borrowed money is malleable and can be used to discourage suboptimal borrowing. Finally, this talk discusses new research investigating the consequences of psychological ownership of other types of monetary resources and a discussion of how and when these perceptions may be malleable.
Panel: Eva Buechel, Hal Hershfield, Nathan Novemsky, Eesha Sharma, and Suzanne Shu
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/eDXzSS5dfYU
JULY 17, 2020
Alice Moon (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: Overestimating the Valuations and Preferences of Others
Abstract: People often make judgments about their own and others’ valuations and preferences. Across several studies, we find a robust bias in these judgments such that people overestimate the valuations and preferences of others. This overestimation arises because, when making predictions about others, people rely on their intuitive core representation of the experience (e.g., Is the experience generally positive?) in lieu of a more complex representation that might also include countervailing aspects (e.g., Is any of the experience negative?). This talk establishes the overestimation bias, tests our explanation for why it arises, and explores some interesting consequences and implications.
Panel: Kate Barasz, Ioannis Evangelidis, Minah Jung, Ellie Kyung, and John McCoy
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/EfML8rFwLxM
JULY 10, 2020
Robyn LeBoeuf (.htm) – Washington University in St. Louis
Title: Account-Depletion Aversion: People Avoid Spending Accounts Down to Zero
Abstract: We document the phenomenon of “account-depletion aversion:” people avoid spending from accounts when doing so would completely deplete those accounts, even when depleting the accounts might make financial sense. For example, we find that people would rather pay a $500 expense from an account with a $1000 balance than from one with a $500 balance, even if the $1000 account pays interest at a higher rate. We consider why this effect may arise, and we identify boundary conditions of the effect. Broadly speaking, depletion aversion seems to arise for savings-oriented accounts (e.g., typical bank accounts) where spending may seem irresponsible, but not for spending-oriented accounts (e.g., gift cards, or accounts earmarked for a specific expense, such as a vacation savings account) where spending may seem more responsible. We consider implications for saving and spending.
Panel: Cindy Cryder, Scott Roeder, Shelle Santana, Marissa Sharif, Eesha Sharma, and Abigail Sussman
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/ssTvlCbpHc8
JUNE 26, 2020
Leaf Van Boven (.htm) – University of Colorado
Title: Party Over Pandemic: Political Partisanship Shapes Public Support for COVID-19 Policy
Panel: Yoel Inbar, Neil Lewis, David Sherman, and Sander van der Linden
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/fANwAnqhZnk
JUNE 12, 2020
Shane Frederick (.htm) – Yale University
Title: Reports, Predictions, and Extrospection
Abstract: Consumer researchers often ask respondents to report their own preferences (How much would you pay for this scented candle?) or to predict the preferences of a specified reference group (Suppose someone was in the market for a scented candle, how much would they be willing to pay for this one?). Almost as frequently, they ask respondents to do something in between (“Suppose you were in the market for a scented candle…”). We call this requested mental act an extrospection: introspecting about the preferences of an alternate “self.” We examine how extrospections differ from reports and predictions and discuss implications.
Panel: Steve Malliaris, Cade Massey, Andrew Meyer, Alice Moon, and Abigail Sussman
Link To Video: Unavailable
JUNE 5, 2020
Katherine B. Coffman (.htm) – Harvard University
Title: Stereotypes and Belief Updating
Abstract: We explore how self-assessments respond to feedback about own ability across a range of tasks, with a particular focus on how gender stereotypes impact belief updating. Participants in our experiments take tests of their ability across different domains. Absent feedback, beliefs of own ability are strongly influenced by gender stereotypes: holding own ability fixed, individuals are more confident in gender congruent domains (i.e., male-typed domains for men, female-typed domains for women). We then provide noisy feedback about own absolute performance to participants and elicit posterior beliefs. Gender stereotypes have significant predictive power for posterior beliefs, both through their influence on prior beliefs, as predicted by the Bayesian model, but also through their influence on updating, a non-Bayesian channel. Both men and women’s beliefs are more responsive to information in gender congruent domains than gender incongruent domains. This is primarily driven by differential reactions to exogenously-received good news about own ability: both men and women react more to good news when it arrives in a gender congruent domain than when it arrives in a gender incongruent domain. Our results have important implications for understanding how feedback shapes, and perpetuates, gender gaps in self-assessments.
Panel: Linda Babcock, Manuela Collis, Alex Imas, PJ Healy, and Rebecca Schaumberg
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/VKTvMyGcyoU
MAY 29, 2020
Tom Meyvis (.htm) – New York University
Title: Consuming Regardless of Preference: Consumers Overestimate the Impact of Liking on Consumption
Abstract: People obviously consume more of products they enjoy than products they dislike. However, when two products are both enjoyable, to what extent does people's relative preference for each product still drive their consumption amount? Across several studies of food and entertainment consumption, we find that, although people expect that their consumption amount will increase with increased liking of a product, actual consumption is surprisingly insensitive to their preferences. We propose that, because consumers' liking of a product is known, salient, and normative (“I should consume more of items I like more”), their predictions tend to focus on liking at the expense of other drivers of consumption, such as boredom, habit, and consumption opportunities.
Panel: Elizabeth Dunn, Mike Norton, Rebecca Ratner, Oleg Urminsky, Heeyoung Yoon, and Gal Zauberman
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/JtePHEFzMks
MAY 22, 2020
Julia Minson (.htm) – Harvard University
Title: Conversational Receptiveness: Expressing Engagement with Opposing Views
Abstract: People obviously consume more of products they enjoy than products they dislike. However, when two products are both enjoyable, to what extent does people's relative preference for each product still drive their consumption amount? Across several studies of food and entertainment consumption, we find that, although people expect that their consumption amount will increase with increased liking of a product, actual consumption is surprisingly insensitive to their preferences. We propose that, because consumers' liking of a product is known, salient, and normative (“I should consume more of items I like more”), their predictions tend to focus on liking at the expense of other drivers of consumption, such as boredom, habit, and consumption opportunities.
Panel: Daniel Ames, Frances Chen, George Loewenstein, Jane Risen, and Juliana Schroeder
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/Irmyt2YJdO8
MAY 15, 2020
Dan Goldstein (.htm) & Jake Hofman (.htm) – Microsoft Research
Title: The Effect of (Not) Communicating Effect Sizes
Abstract: The replication crisis in behavioral research concerns not only false-positives but also effects that turn out to be smaller than commonly understood. Why might scientists' perceptions of effect sizes be inflated? Much justified attention has been paid to p-hacking and file drawer effects. We test whether a third mechanism plays a role: the manner in which behavioral results are visually displayed. We present a series of studies about how people perceive treatment effectiveness when scientific results are summarized in various ways. We first show that a prevalent form of summarizing scientific results—presenting mean differences between conditions—can lead to significant overestimation of treatment effectiveness, and that including confidence intervals can in some cases exacerbate the problem. We next attempt to remedy these misperceptions by displaying information about variability in individual outcomes in different formats: explicit statements about variance, a quantitative measure of standardized effect size, and analogies that compare the treatment with more familiar effects (e.g.,differences in height by age). We find that all of these formats can substantially reduce initial misperceptions, and that effect size analogies can be as helpful as more precise quantitative statements of standardized effect size. Besides Jake and Dan, co-authors on this work are Jessica Hullman and Yea-Seul Kim.
Panel: Bart De Langhe, Shane Frederick, Mirjam Jenny, and Rick Larrick
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/dZTwd27DSrk
MAY 8, 2020
Nina Strohminger (.htm) – University of Pennsylvania
Title: The Uncontrollable Bias of Advocacy
Abstract: While it has long been known that advocating for a cause can alter the advocate’s beliefs, it is often assumed that this bias is controllable. Lawyers, for instance, are taught they can retain unbiased beliefs whilst zealously advocating for their clients, and that they must do so to secure just outcomes. Across several experiments, we show that the biasing effect of advocacy is not controllable, but automatic. Merely incentivizing people to advocate altered a range of beliefs about character, guilt, and punishment. This bias appeared even in beliefs that are highly stable, when people were financially incentivized to form true beliefs, and among professional lawyers, who are trained to prevent advocacy from biasing their judgments.
Panel: Dorsa Amir, Joshua Lewis, David Melnikoff, Jessie Sun, and Arber Tasimi
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/jtXUEB_sINA
MAY 1, 2020
Don Moore (.htm) – University of California, Berkeley
Title: Overprecision Is a Property of Thinking Systems
Abstract: Overprecision is the excessive faith in the accuracy of one’s judgment. I propose a new theory to explain it. The theory holds that overprecision in judgment results from neglect of all the ways in which one could be wrong. When there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, it is impossible to consider them all. Overprecision is the result of being wrong and not knowing it. This explanation can account for the persistence of overprecision not only among people but also artificially intelligent agents. I present studies with human participants and with artificially intelligent agents that test some of the theory’s predictions.
Panel: Julia Minson, Jack Soll, Liz Tenney, Dan Walters, and Paul Windschitl
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/jvscL_btKIo
APRIL 24, 2020
Yoel Inbar (.htm) – University of Toronto
Title: Attitudes Towards Genetically Engineered Food and Other Controversial Scientific Technologies
Abstract: New technologies in agriculture, reproduction, medicine, and elsewhere can provide significant social benefits, but may also pose significant risks. Consequently, it is important to understand which technologies will be adopted or rejected by the public and why. I first examine opposition to genetic engineering (GE) technology in the food domain. In surveys of Americans and Europeans representative of the population on gender, age, and income, pluralities or majorities were “absolutely” opposed—that is, they claimed that GE food should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits. I discuss how these “absolutist” opponents differ from other opponents and supporters, and what kind of persuasion attempts they might respond to. I then discuss new research in which I examine underlying regularities in laypeople’s technology evaluations. I provide evidence for underlying regularities in technology evaluations, such that evaluations of superficially quite different technologies tend to cohere across individuals. Dimension reduction of people’s ratings of a wide range of technologies recovers three groups, which I label Contaminating, Playing God, and Mainstream. Attitudes towards these groups of technologies seem to result from different underlying intuitions that are associated with distinct individual differences.
Panel: Geoff Goodwin, Rachel Ruttan, Sydney Scott, and Deborah Small
Link To Video: https://youtu.be/pg2G6uw-pk4