[ View menu ]

August 1, 2011

On not going viral

Filed in Ideas ,R ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

LACK OF EVIDENCE FOUND FOR THINGS “GOING VIRAL” ON MAJOR WEB PLATFORMS

 

This week the reader is directed to Messy Matters to read up on research conducted by Sharad Goel, Duncan Watts and Dan Goldstein in which they hunted for traces of “viral” diffusion on six web platforms including Twitter, Facebook, and Yahoo!. The results run counter to mainstream intuition.

July 25, 2011

Interview at the AMA to be a goverment fellow and do some good

Filed in Jobs
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB) FELLOWSHIPS IN HOUSEHOLD FINANCE AND CREDIT MARKETS

Here at DSN, we know that some readers are gearing up to interview for a professorship at the AMA conference and for this reason provide tips here. This year, AMA goers will also have an opportunity to interview for a couple very nice government fellowships that put behavioral economics to work:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Fellowships in Household Finance and Credit Markets

The Office of Research in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to fill up to two positions in its Fellows Program and one position in its Senior Fellows Program. Appointments will be for up to two years.

Researchers with expertise in the following areas of psychology and marketing are strongly encouraged to apply:

Judgment and decision-making, heuristics and biases, risk perception; financial decision-making, mental accounting and budgeting; self control, identity, discrimination, social influences in decision making, cognitive psychology.

Fellows will have half time for carrying out independent, self-directed research in these areas. Fellows will also provide analytic support to various aspects of the Bureau’s work concerning financial products and consumer protection, including policy development, regulation, supervision and enforcement.

Interested candidates should apply for these positions through the CFPB website. The positions will be posted during the AMA Summer Educators’ Conference and for a short time afterward. Candidates who are ranked highly based on their application materials will be invited to the CFPB to interview and present their work.

Senior members of the Office of Research will be present at the AMA Summer Educators’ Conference.

We will hold informational sessions and host a gathering (with light refreshments) on Friday and Saturday, August 5 and 6.

All individuals interested in learning more about these positions, the Bureau, and the application process are encouraged to attend an event. To help candidates with planning, we are committing to the following schedule.

Meetings are in Room 2948 at the Marriott Marquis:

Friday, August 5
45 minute information sessions with Q&A at 8am, 9am, 10am, 11am.
Reception 5:00pm-7:00pm. Location: TBA
Saturday, August 6
45 minute information sessions with Q&A at 9am, 10am, 11am, 12pm.
Reception 5:00pm-7:00pm. Location: TBA

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a new agency that will be an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System. Created in July 2010 by the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”, the CFPB will help empower consumers with the information they need to make financial decisions that are best for them and their families and will set and enforce clear, consistent rules that allow banks and other consumer financial services providers to compete on a level playing field. For more information on the CFPB, please visit our website at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

Photo credit: Some images taken from the CFPB’s YouTube Video.

July 21, 2011

How much deception is there in social psychology?

Filed in Ideas ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

IN SEARCH OF THE PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES THAT EMPLOY DECEPTION

Decision Science News was recently at a cocktail party and mentioned that the percentage of studies in a top social psychology journal that employed deception was 80%.

Coarsely, deception in psychological research usually means telling falsehoods (* some say “lies”) to experimental participants. It is supposed to be followed up by debriefing, which is the technical term for confessing. Apologizing is not part of the protocol. Experimental economists tend never to use deception, social psychologists use it some of the time. But how much?

At the cocktail party, our interlocutors accused us of deceiving them about the 80% number. Something to the tune of “you just made that up!”

“Did we just make that up?”, we wondered.

Utilizing a new technology called “the internet”, DSN found the 80% figure cited in two articles Ortmann & Hertwig, 1997 and Taylor and Shepperd, 1996. We didn’t just make it up! However, these articles didn’t do the counting themselves, they cited another article. For example, Taylor and Shepperd say “upwards of 81% of studies published in the top psychological journals use deception (Adair, Dushenko & Lindsay, 1985).”

But what did Adair, Dushenk & Lindsay say?

Leveraging a sophisticated multi-stage technique known as “downloading the article” we found that these authors went through all articles published in JPSP, JESP, and PSPB in 1983, extracted each study, and coded whether it used deception or not. (JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; JESP = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; PSPB = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin). The results are summarized in their Table 5 on page 86.

The result: a stunning 81% of studies in JESP that year used deception. 50% of JPSP studies and 54% of PSPB studies used the practice. Aggregating, 55% of studies in the three journals used the practice in 1983, which is a bit lower than 1979 (58%).

1979, by the way, seems to have been a tough year for a few experimental social psych participants. The Adair et al article (p. 65) mentions a 1979 study by Marshall & Zimbardo in which

Subjects were (a) misled about the purpose of the study, (b) told that they would receive a vitamin injection when, in fact, they received an injection of epinephrine, (c) misinformed regarding the somatic effects of the drug, and (d) misled through fake equipment to believe that their physiological responses were no longer measured when in fact they were. In addition, (e) a doctor also faked the administration of a comparable injection to (f) a confederate, who then (g) proceeded to act in a bizarrely “euphoric” fashion to create a context for subjects’ perceptions of the drug’s effects. In a footnote the authors noted that (h) the medical school’s ethics committee did not allow them to introduce an anger manipulation as well. On top of all this, a complete debriefing of subjects was postponed for several weeks until all of the subjects had been tested.

They also mention (p. 64) the following study, first noted by Kelman (1967):

An experiment (Campbell, Sanderson, & Laverty, 1964) designed to study the establishment of a conditioned response in a situation that was traumatic but not painful and in which stress was induced through the use of a drug that produced a temporary interruption of respiration. This experience, although not painful, was regarded as “horrific” by subjects. Subjects were not warned in advance about the effect of the drug, because this information would have reduced the traumatic impact of the experience.

It would be good to know what the rate of deceptive experiments is today. If anyone knows, please share.

REFERENCES
Adair, J.G., Dushenko, T.W., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40, 59-72.

Campbell, D., Sanderson, R. E., & Laverty, S. G. (1964). Characteristics of a conditioned response in human subjects during extinction trials following a single traumatic conditioning trial. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 627-639.

Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1-11.

Marshall, G. D., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 970-988.

Ortmann, A. & Hertwig, R. Is Deception Acceptable? American Psychologist, 52, 746-747.

Taylor, K.M. & Shepperd, J. A. (1996). Probing suspicion among participants in deception research. American Psychologist, 51, 886-887.

(*) Sorry if the term “telling falsehoods” (or “lying” as some say) offends the reader’s sensibilities, however, it can be occasionally useful to suspend a euphemism for a moment to remind oneself of the underlying logical equivalence. One might object that deception is softer than lying. According to m-w.com to deceive is “to give a false impression” while to lie is “to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive”. By these definitions, one could imagine deception in experiments that does not involve lying. For instance, since cosmetics can cause people to look younger than they are, asking participants to judge the age of a model who is wearing cosmetics is mild deception, but not lying. Telling the participant that the model is not wearing cosmetics is lying. This latter case is what is called “deception” in psychology, with few exceptions.

UPDATE
After posting this, I got an email from a family friend who happens to be a world expert on the topic, and adds some valuable references. The Nicks, Korn and Mainieri article reports the following percentages of deceptive studies for 1994: JPSP 31% and JESP 50%. As in 1983, JESP is still quite a bit higher.

* Korn, J. H. Illusions of reality: A history of deception in social psychology. SUNY Press, 1997. especially chapter 2 on the grownth of deception from 1921 to 1989.

* Nicks, S. D., Korn, J. H., & Mainieri, T. (1997). The rise and fall of deception in social psychology and personality research, 1921 to 1994. Ethics and Behavior, 7, 69-77.

UPDATE TWO

A reader writes:

Dear Decision Science News,

Your internet search was somewhat incomplete. Hertwig and Ortmann wrote many more
interesting articles on deception ;-), and they did so (much) more recently; in some of these
articles they actually did some counting (e.g., those marked with “*” which are attached).
Here is a more complete list of their articles on deception; feel free to distribute widely:

Hertwig & Ortmann: “Deception in Social Psychological Experiments: Two Misconceptions and
a Research Agenda,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 71.3., 2008, 222 – 227.

*Hertwig & Ortmann, “Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense,”
Ethics and Behavior 18.1., 2008, 59 – 92. (This being a companion piece to the next.)

*Ortmann & Hertwig, “The Costs of Deception: Evidence From Psychology,”
Experimental Economics 5.2., 2002, 111 – 131.

Hertwig & Ortmann, “Money, lies, and replicability: On the need for empirically grounded
experimental practices and interdisciplinary discourse,” (with Ralph Hertwig), Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 24, 2001, 433 -451.

Hertwig & Ortmann, “Experimental Practices in Economics: A Challenge for Psychologists? [target article],”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 2001, 383 – 403. http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.hertwig.html
[Reprinted in H. Stam (ed.), Theoretical Psychology – Contemporary Readings, SAGE, 2011, forthcoming.]

Ortmann & Hertwig, “The Question Remains: Is Deception Acceptable?” American Psychologist
53.7., 1998, 806 – 807.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilykbecker/5829019719/

July 14, 2011

2011 guide to the American Marketing Association job market interviews for aspiring professors

Filed in Conferences ,Gossip ,Ideas ,Jobs
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE AMA INTERVIEWS (2011 edition)

PhD students in Marketing, Psychology, and Economics should have sent their “packets” out by the fourth of July in the hopes of lining up interviews at the annual AMA Summer Educator’s Conference. Each year DSN reprints this sort of “what to expect while you’re applying” guide, first published here by Dan Goldstein in 2005.

SHARE YOUR OWN AMA TIPS
I am more than happy to publish AMA tips , updated information, or just AMA horror storie,s as part of this post. You can reach me at dan at dangoldstein dot com and let me know if you want to be anonymous or the opposite (nonymous?).

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
I’ve seen the Marketing job market turn happy grad students into quivering masses of fear. I want to share experiences that I and others have contributed, and provide a bit advice to make the whole process less mysterious.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO ME?
I’ve been on the AMA job market twice (mid 2000s), the Psychology market once (late 90s). As a professor I’ve conducted 20 AMA interviews and been a part of dozens of hiring decisions. I’ve been on the candidate end of about 40 AMA interviews, and experienced numerous campus visits, face-to-face interviews, offers, and rejections. I’m an outsider to Marketing who went on the market older and with more experience than the average rookie (35 years of age, with 8 years of research scientist, postdoc, visiting scholar, and industry positions). I’ve hired many people for many academic posts, so I know both sides.

HOW TO GET INTO THE AMA JOB MARKET
First, at least a couple months before the conference, find where it will be. It’s called the American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference. Strange name, I know. Insiders just call it “The AMA”. Get yourself a room in the conference hotel, preferably on the floor where the express elevator meets the local elevator for the upper floors. You’ll be hanging out on this floor waiting to change elevators anyway, so you might as well start there.

Next, get your advisor / sponsor to write a cover letter encouraging people to meet with you at AMA. It helps if this person is in Marketing. Get 1 or 2 other letters of recommendation, a CV, and some choice pubs. Put them in an envelope and mail them out to a friend of your sponsor at the desired school. It should look like the letter is coming from your sponsor, even though you are doing the actual assembly and mailing. Repeat this process a bunch of times. It’s a good idea to hit a school with 2 packets, 3 if you suspect they’re a little disorganized. Certainly send one to the recruiting coordinator (you might find their name on hiring announcements, which are often sent to your home department’s secretary) and one to your sponsor’s friend. Mail to schools regardless of whether they are advertising a position or not. This is academia: nobody knows anything. This means you may be sending 50 or more packets. You want to have them mailed by the 4th of July.

THEN WHAT?
Wait to get calls or emails from schools wishing to set up AMA interviews with you. These calls may come in as late as one week before the conference. Often they come when you are sitting outside having a drink with friends. Some schools will not invite you for totally unknown reasons. You may get interviews from the top 10 schools and rejected from the 30th-ranked one. Don’t sweat it. Again, this is the land of total and absolute unpredictability that you’re entering into. Also, know that just because you get an interview doesn’t mean they have a job. Sometimes schools don’t know until the last minute if they’ll have funding for a post. Still, you’ll want to meet with them anyway. Other times, schools are quite certain they have two positions, but then later university politics shift and they turn out to have none.

After the AMA, you’ll hopefully get “fly-outs,” that is, offers to come and visit the campus and give a talk. This means you’ve made the top five or so. Most offers go down in December. There’s a second market that happens after all the schools realize they’ve made offers to the same person. Of course, some schools get wise to this and don’t make offers to amazing people who would have come. We need some kind of market mechanism to work out this part of the system.

THE “IT’S ALL ABOUT FRIENDSHIP” RULE
Keep in mind that you will leave this process with 1 or 0 jobs. Therefore, when talking to a person, the most likely thing is that he or she will not be your colleague in the future. You should then think of each opportunity as a chance to make a friend. You’ll need friends to collaborate, to get tenure, get grants, and to go on the market again if you’re not happy with what you get.

HOW DO YOU FIND OUT IN WHICH ROOM TO INTERVIEW?
The schools will leave messages for you telling you in which rooms your interviews will be. You’ll get calls, emails, and notes held for you at the hotel reception. Some schools will fail to get in touch with you so you have to try to find them. Many profs ask the hotel to make their room number public, but for some reason many hotel operators will still not give you the room number. Naturally having a mobile internet connection allows for emailing of room numbers. Try to take care of this early on the first day.

HOW TO TREAT YOURSELF WHILE THERE
My sponsor gave me the advice of not going out at night and getting room service for breakfast and dinner. This worked for me. Also, the ridiculously high price of a room-service breakfast made me feel like I was sparing no expense, which I found strangely motivating.

HOW DO THE ACTUAL AMA INTERVIEWS GO?
At the pre-arranged time you will knock on their hotel room door. You will be let into a suite (p=.4) or a normal hotel room (p=.5, but see below). In the latter case, there will be professors with long and illustrious titles—people you once imagined as dignified—sitting on beds in their socks. The other people in the room may not look at you when you walk in because they will be looking for a precious few seconds at your CV. For at least some people in the room, this may be the first time they have concentrated on your CV. Yikes is right. Put the important stuff early in your CV so nobody can miss it.

THE SEAT OF HONOR
There will be one armchair in the room. Someone will motion towards the armchair, smile, and say, “You get the seat of honor!” This will happen at every school, at every interview, for three days. I promise.

THE TIME COURSE
There will be two minutes of pleasant chit-chat. They will propose that you talk first and they talk next. There will be a little table next to the chair on which you will put your flip book of slides. You will present for 30 minutes, taking their questions as they come. They will be very nice. When done, they will ask you if you have anything to ask them. You of course do not. You hate this question. You make something up. Don’t worry, they too have a spiel, and all you need to do is find a way to get them started on it. By the time they are done, it’s time for you to leave. The whole experience will feel like it went rather well.

PREDICTING IF YOU WILL GET A FLY-OUT
It’s impossible to tell from how it seems to have gone whether they will give you a fly-out or not. Again, this is the land of staggering and high-impact uncertainty. They might not invite you because you were too bad (and they don’t want you), or because you were too good (and they think they don’t stand a chance of getting you and they don’t want to waste a precious fly-0ut on you). The latter fact means that “playing hard to get” is a bad idea.

DO INTERVIEWS DEVIATE FROM THAT MODEL?
Yes.

Sometimes instead of a hotel room, they will have a private meeting room (p=.075). Sometimes they will have a private meeting room with fruit, coffee, and bottled water (p=.025). Sometimes, they will fall asleep while you are speaking (p=.05). Sometimes they will be rude to you (p=.025). Sometimes a key person will miss an early interview due to a hangover (p=.025). Sometimes, if it’s the end of the day, they will offer you alcohol (p=.18, conditional on it being the end of the day).

HOW YOU THINK THE PROCESS WORKS
The committee has read your CV and cover letter and looked at your pubs. They know your topic and can instantly appreciate that what you are doing is important. They know the value of each journal you have published in and each prize you’ve won. They know your advisor and the strengths she or he instills into each student. They ignore what they’re supposed to ignore and assume everything they’re supposed to assume. They’ll attach a very small weight to the interview and fly you out based on your record, which is the right thing to do according to a mountain of research on interviews.

HOW THE PROCESS REALLY WORKS
The interviewers will have looked at your CV for about one minute a couple months ago, and for a few seconds as you walked in the room. They will never have read your entire cover letter, and they will have forgotten most of what they did read. They could care less about your advisor and will get quite annoyed that you didn’t cite their advisor. They’ll pay attention to everything they’re supposed to ignore and assume nothing except what you repeat five times. Flouting 50 years of research in judgment and decision-making, they’ll attach a small weight to your CV and fly you out based on the interview and their gut feeling.

IF ENGLISH IS NOT YOUR MOTHER TONGUE
Your ability to speak English well won’t get you a good job, but your inability to do so will eliminate you from consideration at every top school. Understand that business schools put a premium on teaching. If the interviewers don’t think you can communicate in the classroom, they’re probably not going to take a chance on you. If you are just starting out and your spoken English is shaky, my advice is to work on it as hard as you are working on anything else. Hire a dialect coach (expensive) or an english-speaking actor or improviser (cheaper) to work with you on your English pronunciation. In the Internet age, it’s quite easy to download samples of English conversational speech, for instance from podcasts, for free. It’s also very easy to get a cheap headset and a free audio recorder (like Audacity) with which to practice.

TWO WAYS TO GIVE YOUR SPIEL
1) The plow. You start and the first slide and go through them until the last slide. Stop when interrupted and get back on track.

2) The volley. Keep the slides closed and just talk with the people about your topic. Get them to converse with you, to ask you questions, to ask for clarifications. When you need to show them something, open up the presentation and show them just that slide.

I did the plow the first year and the volley the second year. I got four times more fly-outs the second year. Econometricians are working hard to determine if there was causality. I would not attempt the volley unless you are generally considered to be very good with words.

HOW TO ACT
Make no mistake, you are an actor auditioning for a part. There will be no energy in the room when you arrive. You have to be like Santa Claus bringing in a large sack of energy. The interviewers will be tired. They’ve been listening to people in a stuffy hotel room from dawn till dusk for days. If you do an average job, you lose: You have to be two standard deviations above the mean to get a fly-out. So audition for the part, and make yourself stand out. If you want to learn how actors audition, read Audition by Michael Shurtleff.

SOCIAL SKILLS MATTER
From the candidate’s point of view, everything is about the CV and the correctness of the mathematical proofs in the job market paper. However, for better or for worse, extra-academic qualities matter. Here are two examples. 1) The Social Lubricant factor. Departments get visitors all the time: guest speakers, visiting professors, job candidates, etc. Some departments are a bunch of folks who stare at their shoes when introduced to a new person. These departments have a real problem: they have nobody on board who can make visitors feel at ease, and sooner or later word starts to spread about how socially awkward the people at University X are. To fix such problems, departments sometimes hire socially-skilled types who know how to make people comfortable in conversation, and who know how to ask good questions during talks. Also, interviewers assume that people who can talk a good game will be star teachers. 2) The Soft Sell factor. Many people succeed in academia not because they are often right, but also because they are masters of making other people feel like they aren’t wrong. Defensiveness or determination to embarrass when responding to critique is an effective way to blow an interview.

HAVE A QUIRK
One of the biggest risks facing you is that you will be forgotten. Make sure the interviewers know something unusual about you. My quirk is that I worked internationally as an actor and theater director for over a decade; I even had a bit part in a Conan O’Brien sketch on TV. It has nothing to do my research, but people always bring up this odd little fact when I do campus visits. Some bits of trivia are just more memorable than others.

DON’T GIVE UP
Never think it’s hopeless. Just because you’re not two SDs above the mean at the school of your dreams, it does not mean you’re not the dream candidate of another perfectly good school.

Many candidates don’t realize the following: The students are competing for schools but the schools are also competing for students. If you strike out, you can just try again next year. I know a person in Psychology who got 70 rejections in one year. I know a person in Marketing who was told he didn’t place in the top 60 candidates at the 20th ranked school. The subsequent year, both people got hired by top 5 departments. One of them is ridiculously famous and considered among the smartest people in Marketing!

RUMORS
Gossip can mess with your chances. Gossip that you are doing well can hurt you because schools will be afraid to invite you if they think you won’t come. Gossip that you are doing poorly can hurt you because schools that like you will be afraid to invite you if they think no one else does. Sometimes people will ask a prof at your school if you would come to their school, and the prof will then ask you. To heck with that. Just say that if they want to talk to you, they should talk with you directly.

The danger of rumors can be summed up by the following story. At ACR in 2003, I was having a beer with someone who confessed, “you know, my friend X at school Y told me that they want to hire you, but they’re afraid your wife won’t move to Z”. I was single.

July 3, 2011

Best graph ever

Filed in Gossip ,Ideas ,R ,Tools
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

LARGEST EVER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 328 and 327 SPOTTED IN NEW YORK CITY

Decision Science News was amused to see the above advertisement while riding to work.

If the bottom of the bars is zero, and the metro bar is correctly labelled, the amNY bar is at 240,000. We used PlotDigitizer to steal the points from the graph.

This is without doubt the best graph ever, and we have some tough competitors.

The beer sizes are super-informative too. What is that, a 10:1 difference? We should ask our Pierre Chandon and Nailya Ordabayeva.

June 29, 2011

Should you buy collision insurance?

Filed in Gossip ,Ideas
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

DSN RUMINATES ABOUT INSURANCE WITH PETER MCGRAW

 

This week, Decision Science News’ Dan Goldstein travels to Boulder, and teams up with Peter McGraw for a joint post (over grilled steak). — Enjoy

Most people are happy to have a few types of insurance coverage, typically home, health, and life insurance. However, you can insure most anything. A few of the more peculiar insurance products that recently caught our eye (from here and here):

– Backpacking insurance. In case you get sick or have your backpacking trip canceled.

– Kidnap and ransom insurance. In case you get kidnapped and held for ransom (duh).

– Your hands. If you are a yo-yo champion.

– Your derriere. If you are Jennifer Lopez.

And Pete’s favorite: Legal insurance, which was being advertised in the local college student magazine:

Being a Curvball member means you can speak to a criminal defense lawyer immediately. Get the information and advice you need. Don’t wait to be intimidated by a law enforcement officer with an agenda, or an aggressor looking for someone to blame. You can have a lawyer on the phone in 60 seconds.


People like us (the type who would read this blog) probably have health, and if they have a home, homeowners insurance. At the same time, people like us laugh at the idea of buying extended warranties from the big box electronics stores. The question we pose: Where do we draw the line?

Take car insurance, for example. Pete has a car and has no collision insurance on it (he, of course, has liability insurance for it), whereas Dan, when he had a car, bought collision insurance because that what his family always did.

Who is right, and if you have a car, what do you do?

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/xrrr/4432159611/

ADDENDUM:
This post has sparked a huge mega-rant on messymatters.com. Check it out!

June 21, 2011

SJDM 2011, Seattle, Nov 5-7, 2011

Filed in Conferences ,SJDM ,SJDM-Conferences
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

2011 CALL FOR ABSTRACTS ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY FOR JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING

The Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) invites abstracts for symposia, oral presentations, and posters on any interesting topic related to judgment and decision making. Completed manuscripts are not required. Details are available here: http://www.sjdm.org/programs/2011-cfp.html

LOCATION, DATES, AND PROGRAM
SJDM’s annual conference will be held in the Sheraton Seattle Hotel, Seattle, Washington, during November 5-7, 2011. Early registration and welcome reception will take place the evening of Friday, November 4. Hotel reservations at the $186/night. Psychonomic convention rate will be available.

SUBMISSIONS
The deadline for submissions is July 1, 2011. Submissions for symposia, oral presentations, and posters should be made through the SJDM website at http://sql.sjdm.org. Technical questions can be addressed to the webmaster at www@sjdm.org. All other questions can be addressed to the program chair, Nathan Novemsky, at nathan.novemsky@yale.edu.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Nathan Novemsky (Chair), Michel Regenwetter, Bernd Figner, Robyn LeBoeuf, Gretchen Chapman, Ulf Reips, Wandi Bruine de Bruin, Ellie Kyung, Anuj Shah.

EXECUTIVE BOARD
Eldar Shafir (shafir@princeton.edu), President
Valerie Reyna (vr53@cornell.edu), Past President
George Wu (wu@chicagobooth.edu), President Elect (and Elected Member, 2008-2011)
Gal Zauberman (gal@wharton.upenn.edu), Elected Member, 2010-2011 (replacing George Wu)
Ellen Peters (peters.498@osu.edu), Elected Member, 2009-2012
Gretchen Chapman (gbc@rci.rutgers.edu), Elected Member 2010-2013)
Bud Fennema (fennema@fsu.edu), Secretary-Treasurer
Jon Baron (baron@psych.upenn.edu), Webmaster
Dan Goldstein (dan@dangoldstein.com), Newsletter Editor and Co-webmaster
Nathan Novemsky (nathan.novemsky@yale.edu), 2011 Program Committee Chair

Photo credit:http://www.flickr.com/photos/guy_incognito/63774780/

June 15, 2011

The no-decision diet revealed

Filed in Articles ,Gossip ,Ideas ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

INGREDIENTS OF THE DECISION-FREE DIET

Last week, Decision Science News posted about a “no-decision diet” in which its editor followed, for one week and without exceptions, a healthy diet designed by someone else. Since then, a number of people have written in asking to have a look at the diet. If you were hoping to find out what the diet included, today is your lucky day.

We note that this diet was not customized for you, it was customized for the Decision Science News Editor. We also reinforce that we are not nutritionists, so consider this document as merely curiosity-appeasing information, not a recommendation.

The No-Decision Diet (XSLX format. Note that the spreadsheet has 3 tabs “Menu”, “Recipes” and “Grocery List”)

Also coming in over the wire this week was this poster on how people think complex diets are more effective than simple diets, while this may not be the case: Costs and Benefits of Simplifying Diet and Exercise Rule Complexity.

See also: Mata, J., Todd, P. M., & Lippke, S. (2010). When weight management lasts: Lower rule complexity increases adherence. Appetite, 54,. 37-43

June 9, 2011

A diet of diet, an exercise in exercise

Filed in Gossip ,Ideas
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

HOW ELIMINATING DECISION-MAKING LOST ME 15 POUNDS

I wanted to see what would happen if I made no decisions about what to eat for a week.

So, I emailed my friend Dan Reeves, who has a fitness-expert sister named Melanie Reeves Wicklow, to request a healthy diet I could follow for seven days with no exceptions.

(I knew Dan’s sister had this expertise because I use Beeminder, Dan’s behavioral-economics company, which sends you nagging emails requesting you to report back on how much progress you have made towards various self-imposed goals. The emails sometimes contain nutrition / fitness tips from Melanie.)

Melanie sent the diet. It was great; it even had recipes and a shopping list. I’m very thankful for the help in cooking these provided by my lovely wife Dominique.

So this is what went down:

DAY ONE
Discovered that if you eat oatmeal with an egg in it instead of just oatmeal, you feel full for much longer. A protein effect?

DAY TWO
The diet said nothing about coffee. I tend to do things all the way, so I kicked my five-cup-per-day coffee habit. Was starting to feel the effects.

DAY THREE
Got a coffee-withdrawal headache that was so bad I had to take half a day off work. I vow never to get so addicted again.

DAY FOUR
I start to wonder if eating 2200 calories is making me gain weight. Needless to say, I was the opposite of hungry. I start to wonder if everyone in Dan’s family is as hyper-athletic as Dan and thus capable of eating tons. However, I stick exactly to the diet because that is how I roll.

DAY FIVE
Notice that skin and hair are less oily.

DAY SIX
Notice the absence of tired stretches during the workday, which is surprising since I haven’t had any coffee in about a week.

DAY SEVEN
Sorry to see it end.

SPILLOVER EFFECTS
With diet week over, I go back to making decisions about what to eat. However, I notice the following spillover effects

* I switched to decaf coffee as a kind of Methadone. I feel less tired without coffee than I did while on coffee.
* I took an interest in guesstimating the caloric content of foods. Started entering everything eaten on fitday.com. (Dan, Sharad and I will soon launch a giant research project / game on calorie estimation).
* I scaled back to about 1800 calories per day
* I frequently get off the subway one stop early and walk an extra ten minutes

NET RESULT
I lost 15 pounds in about a couple months after the “no-decision” diet. (I lost no weight during the week of the diet).

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS
A) The imposed diet changed my cravings, gave me new-found discipline, and this caused me to lose weight
B) Some latent state changed deep within me, and this caused me to both i) conceive of requesting the diet and ii) commit to eating better and exercising more
C) Some mixture of both

POSTSCRIPT

After reading a draft of this, Melanie asked me “Did the thought and motivation for [exercising more] come from being more aware of calories in/out or just from having more energy and an overall desire to engage in healthier behaviors?”

I replied. “I think it comes from the energy you get from eating better and from the momentum effect of exerting willpower. Once you start following the diet, it is easy to keep following it and pick up other healthy behaviors along the way. Of course, something needs to change within you to make you start following the diet in the first place, so it is hard to know. However, you can get insight from cases in which you exhibit willpower when it is not really your decision, e.g., a lot of Jewish folks fast every year on Yom Kippur. It’s not really a decision to do it if you are raised that way. But once you get through the fast, on the next day, you realize it is not that hard to eat less. You had just done it, so you know. I guess this gives some weight to the ‘momentum of willpower’ explanation.”

June 3, 2011

Questioning the evidence of influence in social networks

Filed in Articles ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

TWO RECENT ARTICLES THAT QUESTION ACCOUNTS OF INFLUENCE IN SOCIAL NETWORKS

UPDATE: Two months after this was published here in DSN, the New York Times ran this article on the same topic.

In a short span of time, two articles have emerged that question some notable claims of influence in social networks. This does seem important, so we list them here.

ARTICLE ONE
Citation: Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies. Sociological Methods Research, 40(2), 211-239
Link: http://smr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/211.full.pdf+html
Abstract: The authors consider processes on social networks that can potentially involve three factors: homophily, or the formation of social ties due to matching individual traits; social contagion, also known as social influence; and the causal effect of an individual’s covariates on his or her behavior or other measurable responses. The authors show that generically, all of these are confounded with each other. Distinguishing them from one another requires strong assumptions on the parametrization of the social process or on the adequacy of the covariates used (or both). In particular the authors demonstrate, with simple examples, that asymmetries in regression coefficients cannot identify causal effects and that very simple models of imitation (a form of social contagion) can produce substantial correlations between an individual’s enduring traits and his or her choices, even when there is no intrinsic affinity between them. The authors also suggest some possible constructive responses to these results.

ARTICLE TWO
Citation: Lyons, Russell (2011) The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis, Statistics, Politics, and Policy, 2(1)
Link: http://www.bepress.com/spp/vol2/iss1/2
Abstract: The chronic widespread misuse of statistics is usually inadvertent, not intentional. We find cautionary examples in a series of recent papers by Christakis and Fowler that advance statistical arguments for the transmission via social networks of various personal characteristics, including obesity, smoking cessation, happiness, and loneliness. Those papers also assert that such influence extends to three degrees of separation in social networks. We shall show that these conclusions do not follow from Christakis and Fowler’s statistical analyses. In fact, their studies even provide some evidence against the existence of such transmission. The errors that we expose arose, in part, because the assumptions behind the statistical procedures used were insufficiently examined, not only by the authors, but also by the reviewers. Our examples are instructive because the practitioners are highly reputed, their results have received enormous popular attention, and the journals that published their studies are among the most respected in the world. An educational bonus emerges from the difficulty we report in getting our critique published. We discuss the relevance of this episode to understanding statistical literacy and the role of scientific review, as well as to reforming statistics education.