The more narcissistic people are, the more they find leadership theories appealing and the more interest they have in learning about the ideas behind particular theories

Steffens, N. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2020). The narcissistic appeal of leadership theories. American Psychologist, Oct 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000738

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1322167786928545794

Abstract: Leadership is one of the most researched topics in psychological and other social and behavioral sciences. It is routinely seen as vital to the success and vitality of various forms of collaborative activity not only in organizations but in society at large. This has provided the stimulus for a massive amount of theoretical and applied research and also supports a huge industry. But to whom does this body of work appeal? More specifically, does it appeal to people with a broad interest in advancing groups and society or to people who are primarily interested in promoting themselves? To answer this question, we explore the extent to which individuals’ narcissism predicts their endorsement of leadership theories. Results provide empirical evidence that the more narcissistic people are, the more they find leadership theories appealing and the more interest they have in learning about the ideas behind particular theories. The predictive power of narcissism also holds when accounting for other variables (including demographic, Big Five traits, and ideological and motivational variables). We conclude that psychological theorizing about leadership can be a double-edged sword in so far as the lionization of leaders(hip) appeals to, and legitimizes, the tastes of a narcissistic audience

In a recent paper, Bloom et al. (2020) find evidence for a substantial decline in research productivity in the U.S. economy during the last 40 years; we replicate their findings for China and Germany

A global decline in research productivity? Evidence from China and Germany. Philipp Boeinga, Paul Hünermund. Economics Letters, October 29 2020, 109646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109646

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1321862997015449606

Highlights

• Replicates findings in Bloom et al. (2020) for China and Germany.

• Provides evidence for a decline in research productivity in both countries.

• Using firm-level R&D panel data for public and private firms spanning three decades.

• Strong decline in R&D productivity in China due to end of catch-up growth.

• Conclusion: ideas are not only getting harder to find in the U.S.

Abstract: In a recent paper, Bloom et al. (2020) find evidence for a substantial decline in research productivity in the U.S. economy during the last 40 years. In this paper, we replicate their findings for China and Germany, using detailed firm-level data spanning three decades. Our results indicate that diminishing returns in idea production are a global phenomenon, not just confined to the U.S.

Keywords: ProductivityGrowthInnovationR & DTechnological change

Germany: Egalitarianism is more popular than efficiency ideals; females are more egalitarian than men; young and high-educated participants hold different fairness ideals than the rest of the population

Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes. Social Choice and Welfare, Oct 29 2020. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00355-020-01289-5

Abstract: We elicit distributional fairness ideals of impartial spectators using an incentivized experiment in a large and heterogeneous sample of the German population. We document several empirical facts: (i) egalitarianism is more popular than efficiency- and maxi-min ideals; (ii) females are more egalitarian than men; (iii) men are relatively more efficiency minded; (iv) left-leaning voters are more likely to be egalitarians, whereas right-leaning voters are more likely to be efficiency-minded; and (v) young and high-educated participants hold different fairness ideals than the rest of the population. Moreover, we show that fairness ideals predict preferences for redistribution and intervention by the government, as well as actual charitable giving, even after controlling for a range of covariates. This paper thus contributes to our understanding of the underpinnings of voting behavior and ideological preferences and to the literature that links laboratory measures and field behavior.

Translated instructions

This part of the questionnaire is about four proposals on the distribution of money. The amounts of money are real and can be paid to randomly selected participants of the questionnaire. We kindly ask you to select a proposal on how to divide the money between two other participants of the questionnaire in each of the four [two] decision situations. We will call these two participants person 1 and person 2. All other participants, not only you, will make four such proposals. Not all decisions are going to be paid out for real in the end. Instead, the computer will randomly choose 50 proposals made by the participants for each of the 4 decisions. This means that at the end 4 times 50 that is 200 proposals will be paid out for real. We estimate that 3500 people will take part in this questionnaire (Figs. 6, 7).

For each randomly selected proposal, two randomly chosen participants will be selected who will receive the proposed monetary amounts. One person will be randomly assigned to the role of person 1 and to the other to the role of person 2. Each of the two will then receive the payoff of corresponding to the relevant proposal. Each of the proposals made can be randomly selected for the actual payoff by the computer. So it could be that your proposal will be chosen and that two other participants will receive exactly as much money as you proposed. You could also be selected and receive the payoff that another participant proposed. In this case the money will be directly transferred to your account at the GIP. None of the participants can be chosen more than once to receive money. All decisions made will of course stay anonymous. We will notify the winners.

Below four proposals (A, B, C and D) on how to distribute money between person 1 and person 2 are depicted. We kindly ask you to indicate which of these alternatives you prefer.

• Alternative A: person 1 should receive 10 Euros; person 2 should receive 9 Euros.

• Alternative B: person 1 should receive 15 Euros; person 2 should receive 7 Euros.

• Alternative C: person 1 should receive 8 Euros; person 2 should receive 8 Euros.

• Alternative D: person 1 should receive 16 Euros; person 2 should receive 2 Euros.

Please pay attention that your decision can affect how much two other (anonymous) randomly selected participants actually receive. Which alternative do you prefer?

Translated wording of relevant GIP questions

Income differences

Now we will deal with a different topic. Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statement:

The government should take measures to reduce income differences. Keep in mind that these measures must be financed by taxes that would lead to reductions of one’s salary.

You can only give one answer:

1. 1.

   I strongly agree.

2. 2.

   I agree.

3. 3.

   I am indifferent.

4. 4.

   I disagree.

5. 5.

   I strongly disagree.

Tax equity

Should people who work more than others and therefore also earn more pay less or more taxes than they currently do?

1. 1.

   Pay far less taxes than they currently do.

2. 2.

   Pay slightly less taxes than they currently do.

3. 3.

   Pay the same amount of taxes that they currently do.

4. 4.

   Pay slightly more taxes than they currently do.

5. 5.

   Pay a lot more taxes than they currently do.