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.
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