Telling young children they have a reputation for being smart promotes cheating. Li Zhao et al. Developmental Science, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12585/abstract
Abstract: The present research examined the consequences of telling young children they have a reputation for being smart. Of interest was how this would affect their willingness to resist the temptation to cheat for personal gain as assessed by a temptation resistance task, in which children promised not to cheat in the game. Two studies with 3- and 5-year-old children (total N = 323) assessed this possibility. In Study 1, participants were assigned to one of three conditions: a smart reputation condition in which they were told they have a reputation for being smart, an irrelevant reputation control condition, or a no reputation control condition. Children in the smart reputation condition were significantly more likely to cheat than their counterparts in either control condition. Study 2 confirmed that reputational concerns are indeed a fundamental part of our smart reputation effect. These results suggest that children as young as 3 years of age are able to use reputational cues to guide their behavior, and that telling young children they have a positive reputation for being smart can have negative consequences.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
The Long-Term Effects of Legalizing Divorce on Children
The Long-Term Effects of Legalizing Divorce on Children. Libertad González and Tarja Viitanen. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obes.12200/abstract
Abstract: We estimate the effect of divorce legalization on the long-term well-being of children, by exploiting the different timing of divorce legalization across Europe. We compare the adult outcomes of cohorts raised when divorce was banned with those of cohorts raised after divorce was legalized in the same country. We also have ‘control’ countries where all cohorts were exposed (or not exposed) to legal divorce as children. We find that women who grew up under legal divorce have lower earnings and income and worse health as adults compared with women who grew up under illegal divorce. These negative effects are not found for men.
Abstract: We estimate the effect of divorce legalization on the long-term well-being of children, by exploiting the different timing of divorce legalization across Europe. We compare the adult outcomes of cohorts raised when divorce was banned with those of cohorts raised after divorce was legalized in the same country. We also have ‘control’ countries where all cohorts were exposed (or not exposed) to legal divorce as children. We find that women who grew up under legal divorce have lower earnings and income and worse health as adults compared with women who grew up under illegal divorce. These negative effects are not found for men.
Immaterial and monetary gifts in economic transactions: evidence from the field
Immaterial and monetary gifts in economic transactions: evidence from the field.Michael Kirchler, Stefan Palan. Experimental Economics, Aug 02 2017, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10683-017-9536-1
Abstract: Reciprocation of monetary gifts is well-understood in economics. In contrast, there is little research on reciprocal behavior following immaterial gifts like compliments. We narrow this gap and investigate how employees reciprocate after receiving immaterial gifts and material gifts over time. We purchase (1) ice cream from fast food restaurants, and (2) durum doner, a common lunch snack, from independent vendors. Prior to the food’s preparation, we either compliment or tip the salesperson. We find that salespersons reciprocate compliments with higher product weight than in a control treatment. Importantly, this reciprocal behavior following immaterial gifts grows over repeated transactions. Tips, in contrast, have a stronger level effect which does not change over time.
Abstract: Reciprocation of monetary gifts is well-understood in economics. In contrast, there is little research on reciprocal behavior following immaterial gifts like compliments. We narrow this gap and investigate how employees reciprocate after receiving immaterial gifts and material gifts over time. We purchase (1) ice cream from fast food restaurants, and (2) durum doner, a common lunch snack, from independent vendors. Prior to the food’s preparation, we either compliment or tip the salesperson. We find that salespersons reciprocate compliments with higher product weight than in a control treatment. Importantly, this reciprocal behavior following immaterial gifts grows over repeated transactions. Tips, in contrast, have a stronger level effect which does not change over time.
Political Differences in Free Will Belief are Driven by Differences in Moralization
Political Differences in Free Will Belief are Driven by Differences in Moralization. Cory J. Clark et al. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3011597
Abstract: Five studies tested whether political conservatives’ stronger free will beliefs are driven by their broader view of morality, and thus a broader motivation to assign responsibility. On an individual difference level, Study 1 found that political conservatives’ higher moral wrongness judgments accounted for their higher belief in free will. In Study 2, conservatives ascribed more free will for negative events than liberals, while no differences emerged for positive events. For actions ideologically equivalent in perceived moral wrongness, free will judgments also did not differ (Study 3), and actions that liberals perceived as more wrong, liberals judged as more free (Study 4). Finally, higher wrongness judgments mediated the effect of conservatism on free will beliefs (Study 5). Higher free will beliefs among conservatives may be explained by conservatives’ tendency to moralize, which strengthens motivation to justify blame with stronger belief in free will and personal accountability.
Keywords: free will, morality, blame, motivated cognition, political psychology
Abstract: Five studies tested whether political conservatives’ stronger free will beliefs are driven by their broader view of morality, and thus a broader motivation to assign responsibility. On an individual difference level, Study 1 found that political conservatives’ higher moral wrongness judgments accounted for their higher belief in free will. In Study 2, conservatives ascribed more free will for negative events than liberals, while no differences emerged for positive events. For actions ideologically equivalent in perceived moral wrongness, free will judgments also did not differ (Study 3), and actions that liberals perceived as more wrong, liberals judged as more free (Study 4). Finally, higher wrongness judgments mediated the effect of conservatism on free will beliefs (Study 5). Higher free will beliefs among conservatives may be explained by conservatives’ tendency to moralize, which strengthens motivation to justify blame with stronger belief in free will and personal accountability.
Keywords: free will, morality, blame, motivated cognition, political psychology
Not having schadenfreude can be a signal of Huntington's
Corticostriatal signatures of schadenfreude: evidence from Huntington's disease. Sandra Baez et al. Journal of NeuroIogy, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, on-line Aug 01 2017. http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2017/07/31/jnnp-2017-316055
Abstract: Schadenfreude—pleasure at others’ misfortunes—is a multidetermined social emotion which involves reward processing, mentalising and perspective-taking abilities. Patients with Huntington's disease (HD) exhibit reductions of this experience, suggesting a role of striatal degeneration in such impairment. However, no study has directly assessed the relationship between regional brain atrophy in HD and reduced schadenfreude. Here, we assessed whether grey matter (GM) atrophy in patients with HD correlates with ratings of schadenfreude. First, we compared the performance of 20 patients with HD and 23 controls on an experimental task designed to trigger schadenfreude and envy (another social emotion acting as a control condition). Second, we compared GM volume between groups. Third, we examined brain regions where atrophy might be associated with specific impairments in the patients. While both groups showed similar ratings of envy, patients with HD reported lower schadenfreude. The latter pattern was related to atrophy in regions of the reward system (ventral striatum) and the mentalising network (precuneus and superior parietal lobule). Our results shed light on the intertwining of reward and socioemotional processes in schadenfreude, while offering novel evidence about their neural correlates.
Abstract: Schadenfreude—pleasure at others’ misfortunes—is a multidetermined social emotion which involves reward processing, mentalising and perspective-taking abilities. Patients with Huntington's disease (HD) exhibit reductions of this experience, suggesting a role of striatal degeneration in such impairment. However, no study has directly assessed the relationship between regional brain atrophy in HD and reduced schadenfreude. Here, we assessed whether grey matter (GM) atrophy in patients with HD correlates with ratings of schadenfreude. First, we compared the performance of 20 patients with HD and 23 controls on an experimental task designed to trigger schadenfreude and envy (another social emotion acting as a control condition). Second, we compared GM volume between groups. Third, we examined brain regions where atrophy might be associated with specific impairments in the patients. While both groups showed similar ratings of envy, patients with HD reported lower schadenfreude. The latter pattern was related to atrophy in regions of the reward system (ventral striatum) and the mentalising network (precuneus and superior parietal lobule). Our results shed light on the intertwining of reward and socioemotional processes in schadenfreude, while offering novel evidence about their neural correlates.
Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater? Serial Infidelity Across Subsequent Relationships
Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater? Serial Infidelity Across Subsequent Relationships. Kayla Knopp, Shelby Scott, Lane Ritchie, Galena K. Rhoades, Howard J. Markman, Scott M. Stanley. Archives of Sexual Behavior, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-1018-1
Abstract: Although there is a large body of research addressing predictors of relationship infidelity, no study to our knowledge has specifically addressed infidelity in a previous relationship as a risk factor for infidelity in a subsequent relationship. The current study addressed risk for serial infidelity by following adult participants (N = 484) longitudinally through two mixed-gender romantic relationships. Participants reported their own extra-dyadic sexual involvement (ESI) (i.e., having sexual relations with someone other than their partner) as well as both known and suspected ESI on the part of their partners in each romantic relationship. Findings from logistic regressions showed that those who reported engaging in ESI in the first relationship were three times more likely to report engaging in ESI in their next relationship compared to those who did not report engaging in ESI in the first relationship. Similarly, compared to those who reported that their first-relationship partners did not engage in ESI, those who knew that their partners in the first relationships had engaged in ESI were twice as likely to report the same behavior from their next relationship partners. Those who suspected their first-relationship partners of ESI were four times more likely to report suspicion of partner ESI again in their next relationships. These findings controlled for demographic risk factors for infidelity and held regardless of respondent gender or marital status. Thus, prior infidelity emerged as an important risk factor for infidelity in next relationships. Implications for novel intervention targets for prevention of serial relationship infidelity are discussed.
Keywords: Dating relationships, Extra-dyadic sexual involvement, Infidelity
Abstract: Although there is a large body of research addressing predictors of relationship infidelity, no study to our knowledge has specifically addressed infidelity in a previous relationship as a risk factor for infidelity in a subsequent relationship. The current study addressed risk for serial infidelity by following adult participants (N = 484) longitudinally through two mixed-gender romantic relationships. Participants reported their own extra-dyadic sexual involvement (ESI) (i.e., having sexual relations with someone other than their partner) as well as both known and suspected ESI on the part of their partners in each romantic relationship. Findings from logistic regressions showed that those who reported engaging in ESI in the first relationship were three times more likely to report engaging in ESI in their next relationship compared to those who did not report engaging in ESI in the first relationship. Similarly, compared to those who reported that their first-relationship partners did not engage in ESI, those who knew that their partners in the first relationships had engaged in ESI were twice as likely to report the same behavior from their next relationship partners. Those who suspected their first-relationship partners of ESI were four times more likely to report suspicion of partner ESI again in their next relationships. These findings controlled for demographic risk factors for infidelity and held regardless of respondent gender or marital status. Thus, prior infidelity emerged as an important risk factor for infidelity in next relationships. Implications for novel intervention targets for prevention of serial relationship infidelity are discussed.
Keywords: Dating relationships, Extra-dyadic sexual involvement, Infidelity
The limitations of Nyhan and Reifler's backfire effect
The limitations of the backfire effect. Kathryn Haglin. Research & Politics, July 3, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017716547
Abstract: Nyhan and Reifler (2010, 2015) document a “backfire effect,” wherein attempts to correct factual misperceptions increase the prevalence of false beliefs. These results are widely cited both in and outside of political science. In this research note, I report the results of a replication of Nyhan and Reifler’s (2015) flu vaccine study that was embedded in a larger study about flu vaccines. The backfire effect was not replicated in my experiment. The main replication result suggests the need for additional studies to verify the backfire effect and identify conditions under which it occurs.
Introduction
Political scientists are increasingly aware of the effect of misperceptions on behavioral intentions and attitudes. While Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) famously note that most citizens do not have much factual knowledge about politics, Kuklinski et al. (2000) point out the differences between being uninformed and misinformed. When a person is misinformed, false, misleading, or unsubstantiated information can create the basis for their policy preferences. Further, the sources used to obtain the misinformation are often directly related to a person’s political preferences.
While there is some evidence that providing relevant facts has the ability to change people’s issue opinions (Gilens, 2001; Kuklinski et al., 2000), information is often received in a much noisier environment. Other studies have found that individuals are often resistant to evidence that contradicts their opinions (Redlawsk, 2002; Taber and Lodge, 2006). The literature, however, remains unsettled as to exactly when and how misperceptions can be corrected. In addition, the role of the “backfire effect,” where corrective information can actually make false beliefs more prevalent, in these processes remains unclear. For example, Weeks and Garrett (2014) do not find evidence for the backfire effect in a study about correcting rumors in the 2008 presidential campaign. Similarly, Ecker et al.’s (2014) study of racial attitudes finds those attitudes do not change the effectiveness of discounting information. Looking at similar attitudes, Garrett et al. (2013) find no evidence of these backfire effects in a study about a proposed Islamic cultural center in New York City. By contrast, Nyhan and Reifler (2010, 2015) find evidence for a backfire effect in a vaccines context as well as in the case of being correctly informed about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This research note reports a replication of Nyhan and Reifler’s (2015) flu vaccines study embedded within a larger experimental study of flu vaccine intentions and attitudes. Data generated in the experiment do not replicate the backfire effect or the finding that corrections reduce misperceptions about vaccine safety. This suggests that more work is needed to validate the backfire effect, establishing the conditions under which it occurs and the size of its effect.
Keywords Vaccine, replication, backfire effect, misperception
Abstract: Nyhan and Reifler (2010, 2015) document a “backfire effect,” wherein attempts to correct factual misperceptions increase the prevalence of false beliefs. These results are widely cited both in and outside of political science. In this research note, I report the results of a replication of Nyhan and Reifler’s (2015) flu vaccine study that was embedded in a larger study about flu vaccines. The backfire effect was not replicated in my experiment. The main replication result suggests the need for additional studies to verify the backfire effect and identify conditions under which it occurs.
Introduction
Political scientists are increasingly aware of the effect of misperceptions on behavioral intentions and attitudes. While Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) famously note that most citizens do not have much factual knowledge about politics, Kuklinski et al. (2000) point out the differences between being uninformed and misinformed. When a person is misinformed, false, misleading, or unsubstantiated information can create the basis for their policy preferences. Further, the sources used to obtain the misinformation are often directly related to a person’s political preferences.
While there is some evidence that providing relevant facts has the ability to change people’s issue opinions (Gilens, 2001; Kuklinski et al., 2000), information is often received in a much noisier environment. Other studies have found that individuals are often resistant to evidence that contradicts their opinions (Redlawsk, 2002; Taber and Lodge, 2006). The literature, however, remains unsettled as to exactly when and how misperceptions can be corrected. In addition, the role of the “backfire effect,” where corrective information can actually make false beliefs more prevalent, in these processes remains unclear. For example, Weeks and Garrett (2014) do not find evidence for the backfire effect in a study about correcting rumors in the 2008 presidential campaign. Similarly, Ecker et al.’s (2014) study of racial attitudes finds those attitudes do not change the effectiveness of discounting information. Looking at similar attitudes, Garrett et al. (2013) find no evidence of these backfire effects in a study about a proposed Islamic cultural center in New York City. By contrast, Nyhan and Reifler (2010, 2015) find evidence for a backfire effect in a vaccines context as well as in the case of being correctly informed about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This research note reports a replication of Nyhan and Reifler’s (2015) flu vaccines study embedded within a larger experimental study of flu vaccine intentions and attitudes. Data generated in the experiment do not replicate the backfire effect or the finding that corrections reduce misperceptions about vaccine safety. This suggests that more work is needed to validate the backfire effect, establishing the conditions under which it occurs and the size of its effect.
Keywords Vaccine, replication, backfire effect, misperception
In the Red: The Effects of Color on Investment Behavior
In the Red: The Effects of Color on Investment Behavior. William Bazley, Henrik Cronqvist & Milica Mormann. University of Miami Working Paper, June 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2992812
Abstract: Financial decisions in today's society are made in environments that involve color stimuli. In this paper, we perform an empirical analysis of the effects of color on investment behavior. First, we find that when investors are displayed potential losses in red, risk taking is reduced. Second, when investors are shown past negative stock price paths in red, expectations about future stock returns are reduced. Consistent with red causing "avoidance behavior," red color reduces investors' propensity to purchase stocks. The findings are robust to a series of checks involving colorblind investors and alternative colors to control for salience effects. Finally, the effects are muted in a cultural setting, e.g., China, where red is not used to visualize financial losses. A contribution of this study is to introduce hypotheses from color psychology and visual science to enhance our understanding of the behavior of individual investors.
Keywords: Investment behavior; Color psychology
JEL Classification: G02, G11
Abstract: Financial decisions in today's society are made in environments that involve color stimuli. In this paper, we perform an empirical analysis of the effects of color on investment behavior. First, we find that when investors are displayed potential losses in red, risk taking is reduced. Second, when investors are shown past negative stock price paths in red, expectations about future stock returns are reduced. Consistent with red causing "avoidance behavior," red color reduces investors' propensity to purchase stocks. The findings are robust to a series of checks involving colorblind investors and alternative colors to control for salience effects. Finally, the effects are muted in a cultural setting, e.g., China, where red is not used to visualize financial losses. A contribution of this study is to introduce hypotheses from color psychology and visual science to enhance our understanding of the behavior of individual investors.
Keywords: Investment behavior; Color psychology
JEL Classification: G02, G11
Does Subjective SES Moderate the Effect of Money Priming on System Support? A Replication of Schuler and Wänke (2016)
Does Subjective SES Moderate the Effect of Money Priming on System Support? A Replication of Schuler and Wänke (2016). Jarret Crawford & Allison Fournier, https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/c43bk/
Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006) reported that subtle money cues impacted a range of behaviors, including working independently without asking for assistance, contributing less to charity, and providing less assistance to experimenters and confederates. Other research found that money priming effects decreased empathy, compassion, and people’s willingness to volunteer and donate time and money (Chatterjee, Rose, & Sinha, 2013; Molinsky, Grant, & Margolis, 2012; Pfeffer & DeVoe, 2009).
Further, Caruso, Vohs, Baxter, and Waytz (2013) reasoned that because money is a symbol of American free-market capitalism, subtle money reminders would make people more accepting of free-market and other belief systems that justify existing structural inequality. They reported five studies suggesting that money priming increased support for such beliefs systems (i.e., System Justification, Belief in a Just World [BJW], Social Dominance Orientation, and Fair Market Ideology).
These findings have been called into question by notable failed replication attempts.
[...]
We conclude that the original findings may have been the result of sampling error, and the findings of “small telescopes” analyses are consistent with this conclusion. We discuss implications for money priming effects, and replication attempts in general.
Keywords: money priming; system justification; BJW; priming effects; replication
My Spanish commentary: many who I know are supportive of free markets and do not contribute less to charities or help less coworkers (being very, very competitive at the same time)... They just re-orient my contributions from organizations perceived as failures or corrupt ones (an example is any European Red Cross society, which brags about their universal, impartial, neutral, etc., character, but does not deliver) to others perceived as less crooked in their conduct codes and actual behavior (American Red Cross). Or don't give to child cancer research, which produces very scant results in disorganized societies, but contribute to medical organizations that are the best in their city and are in the first position in the place they live in (Mount Sinai Hospital, Barcelona Clinic Hospital, La Paz Hospital). Or do not contribute to museums or libraries in disorganized societies, but contribute to others perceived as with top-notch credentials (Library of Congress). Or do not volunteer for traditional parties, but help and contribute to other parties and organizations (e.g., Libertarian ones). This is just a bunch of anecdotes, but many people with lots of money and assets contribute a lot. Obviously those non-replicable studies are quite defective... too many exceptions.
Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006) reported that subtle money cues impacted a range of behaviors, including working independently without asking for assistance, contributing less to charity, and providing less assistance to experimenters and confederates. Other research found that money priming effects decreased empathy, compassion, and people’s willingness to volunteer and donate time and money (Chatterjee, Rose, & Sinha, 2013; Molinsky, Grant, & Margolis, 2012; Pfeffer & DeVoe, 2009).
Further, Caruso, Vohs, Baxter, and Waytz (2013) reasoned that because money is a symbol of American free-market capitalism, subtle money reminders would make people more accepting of free-market and other belief systems that justify existing structural inequality. They reported five studies suggesting that money priming increased support for such beliefs systems (i.e., System Justification, Belief in a Just World [BJW], Social Dominance Orientation, and Fair Market Ideology).
These findings have been called into question by notable failed replication attempts.
[...]
We conclude that the original findings may have been the result of sampling error, and the findings of “small telescopes” analyses are consistent with this conclusion. We discuss implications for money priming effects, and replication attempts in general.
Keywords: money priming; system justification; BJW; priming effects; replication
My Spanish commentary: many who I know are supportive of free markets and do not contribute less to charities or help less coworkers (being very, very competitive at the same time)... They just re-orient my contributions from organizations perceived as failures or corrupt ones (an example is any European Red Cross society, which brags about their universal, impartial, neutral, etc., character, but does not deliver) to others perceived as less crooked in their conduct codes and actual behavior (American Red Cross). Or don't give to child cancer research, which produces very scant results in disorganized societies, but contribute to medical organizations that are the best in their city and are in the first position in the place they live in (Mount Sinai Hospital, Barcelona Clinic Hospital, La Paz Hospital). Or do not contribute to museums or libraries in disorganized societies, but contribute to others perceived as with top-notch credentials (Library of Congress). Or do not volunteer for traditional parties, but help and contribute to other parties and organizations (e.g., Libertarian ones). This is just a bunch of anecdotes, but many people with lots of money and assets contribute a lot. Obviously those non-replicable studies are quite defective... too many exceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
