Friday, November 7, 2014

Conference in Caltech

Caltech Mini-conference on Experimental Economics
November 7-8, 2014, Baxter Hall, Caltech
Organized by Marina Agranov and Leeat Yariv

Friday, November 7, 2014

9:00AM – 9:30AM
Check-in and Breakfast
9:30AM – 10:10AM
Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma
Presnted by: Guillaume Frechette (New York University)
Co-authors: Matthew Embrey and Sevgi Yuksel
10:10AM – 10:50AM
Dynamic Coalitions and Communication
Presented by: Salvatore Nunnari (Columbia University)
Co-authors: Dave Baron and Renee Bowen
10:50AM – 11:10AM
Coffee Break
11:10AM – 11:50PM
Money is not memory: an experiment
Presented by: G
abrielle Camera (Chapman University)
Co-authors: Maria Bigoni and Marco Casari
11:50AM – 12:30PM
Identity and the Escalation of Conflict
Presented by: Michael McBride (University of California – Irvine)
Co-authors: Michael Caldara, Matthew McCarter, and Roman Sherementa
12:30PM – 1:30PM
Lunch
1:30PM – 2:10PM
Dynamic Incentives and Markov Perfection: Putting the "Conditional" in
Cooperation
Presented by: Alistair Wilson (University of Pittsburgh)
Co-author: Emanuel Vespa
2:10PM – 2:30PM
Coffee Break
2:30PM – 3:10PM
Testing the Theory of Continuous Time Games
Presented by: Ryan Oprea (University of California – Santa Barbara)
Co-author: Evan Calford
3:10PM – 3:30PM
Coffee Break
3:30PM – 4:10PM
The Distributional Preferences of the Elite
Presented by: Shachar Kariv (University of California – Berkeley)
Co-author: Raymond Fisman, Pamela Jakiela, Daniel Markovits
4:10PM – 4:30PM
Coffee Break
4:30PM – 5:10PM
Measuring Ambiguity Aversion: Experimental Tests of Subjective Expected
Utility
Presented by: Charles Sprenger (University of California – San Diego)
Co-author: James Andreoni and Tobias Schmidt
6PM
Dinner and Magic

Saturday, November 8, 2014
9:00AM – 9:30AM
Breakfast
9:30AM – 10:10AM
Voting with Endogenous Information Acquisition: Theory and Evidence
Presented by: John Duffy (University of California – Irvine)
Co-author: Sourav Bhattacharya and Sun-Tak Kim
10:10AM – 10:50AM
Endogenous sample selection in common value environments: A
laboratory study
Presented by: Ignacio Esponda (Washington University)
Co-author: Emanuel Vespa
10:50AM – 11:20AM
Coffee Break
11:20AM – 12:10AM
Negative Childhood Experiences and Risk Aversion: Evidence from
Children Exposed to Domestic Violence
Presented by: Marco Castillo (George Mason University)
12:10AM – 12:50PM
Gender Differences in Competitiveness and Career Choices
Presented by: Muriel Niederle (Stanford University)
Co-authors: Thomas Buser and Hessel Oosterbeek
12:50PM
Lunch and Farewells

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Women don't speak up!

Katie Coffman has a new paper forthcoming in the QJE on Evidence on Self-Stereotyping and the Contribution of Ideas

The abstract reads:
"We use a lab experiment to explore the factors that predict an individual's decision to contribute her idea to a group. We find that contribution decisions depend upon the interaction
of gender and the gender stereotype associated with the decision-making domain: conditional
on measured ability, individuals are less willing to contribute ideas in areas that are stereotypically outside of their gender's domain. Importantly, these decisions are largely driven by
self-assessments, rather than fear of discrimination. Individuals are less confident in gender
incongruent areas and are thus less willing to contribute their ideas. Because even very knowledgeable group members under-contribute in gender incongruent categories, group performance suffers and, ex post, groups have difficulty recognizing who their most talented members are. Our results show that even in an environment where other group members show no bias, women in male-typed areas and men in female-typed areas may be less influential. An intervention that provides feedback about a woman's (man's) strength in a male-typed (female-typed) area does not significantly increase the probability that she contributes her ideas to the group. A back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that a lean in style policy that increases contribution by
women would significantly improve group performance in male-typed domains."

Here's the killer figure: The Probability of a Missed Opportunity: that is, someone knew the right answer, but their answer wasn't chosen and intead the group got the answer wrong (because the person knowing the answer didn't speak up enough or the other too much).

For each score (i.e. how many answers they got correct in a test in that category), the chance a man (black) or a woman (light grey) with that score had a missed opportunity.

The figure below is for Male Typed Categories (Environmental science, Sports, History, Geography)


So, women with a perfect score (5) in a male typed category, have a higher chance to have a missed opportunity than men with a score of 1 out of 5. 

The best women just have a barely lower chance to not miss an opportunity compared to men who got everything wrong. 


Wednesday, September 24, 2014

More fun with google

I've written before about google searches and gender

Here's a link to an article with the same idea:

The starting point is the following search...



here's another nice one 


Google actually wrote to the guy about the "english major who taught herself calculus" correction.

"We saw your tweet — just wanted to reach out and explain a bit here.
If you search for “taught himself calculus” (in quotes), you’ll see it’s a particularly popular phrase on the web, appearing about 282,000 times — because there’s a popular story out there that Einstein taught himself physics as a teenager (and a recent news story that a kid in Indiana did too). “Taught herself calculus” appears only around 4,000 times. So when Google sees two phrases like this and one is much more common, it may suggest it as a possible alternate search. It’s more complex than that, but that’s essentially why you’re seeing this result. (Darn you, Einstein!)"

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Getting more out of science

There has been a lot of activity recently on how to ensure we don't get sidetracked by wrong, or non-robust results.

A recent NYtimes post by Brendan Nyhan on this is quite good: To Get More Out of Science, Show the Rejected Research

He writes:
"The intense competition for space in top journals creates strong pressures for novel, statistically significant effects. As a result, studies that do not turn out as planned or find no evidence of effects claimed in previous research often go unpublished, even though their findings can be important and informative."

"This pattern of publication bias and failed replications, which is drawing attention in fields from psychology to medicine, has prompted great alarm within the scientific community. "

"Others advocate requiring the registration of trials before data has been collected. For instance, some social scientists have voluntarily begun to preregister analysis plans for experiments to minimize concerns about selective reporting. Unfortunately, the demand for statistically significant results is still likely to create publication bias. For example, federal law and journal policies now require registration of clinical trials, but publishing of trial results has been found to be selective, to frequently deviate from protocols and to emphasize significant results. "

His solution:
"Instead, my colleagues and I propose a radically different publishing model: Ask journal editors and scientific peers to review study designs and analysis plans and commit to publish the results if the study is conducted and reported in a professional manner (which will be ensured by a second round of peer review)."

Funnily enough, this comes up again and again in experimental economics. And most often when people think about controversies, and when they got annoyed that their paper, which had such a nice design, didn't get a good publication just because the results weren't maybe as exciting as one could hope for...

I actually don't agree. There are many ways in which an interesting design can deliver results that are not interesting. The problem is, it is often easier to detect whether a result was achieved for the wrong reasons (though that may not always be very easy) than why an expected result did not happen. And there could be many boring reasons for an expected result that did not happen. An extreme example is that somehow things were so complicated that everything just turned out to be very noisy. Think of running your perfect design but using only subjects who actually don't understand your language. The results of the best design might not be worth publishing, and correctly so.

Likewise, many designs that we thought were not interesting may actually turn out to be very interesting and important. Not everyone will have the same intuition. 

Monday, September 22, 2014

Two new books on gender

Tyler Cowen writes in the NYtimes about Why the Economic Gender Gap Will Eventually Close

"The first book, “Why Gender Matters in Economics” (Princeton University Press, 2014) by Mukesh Eswaran, an economics professor at the University of British Columbia, draws on data from past economic studies conducted under laboratory conditions to show how gender influences financial actions and relationships."

I actually got that book in the mail, I may write about it later. 

"In sum, these research results suggest that women are perceived as easier to take advantage of in a variety of economic settings. That’s the bad news, and it comes from measuring a difference in gender behavior at a specific point in time."

Tyler is more optimistic about the second book The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation and Institutions” (Princeton University Press, 2014) by Christopher F. Karpowitz, professor of political science at Brigham Young University, and Tali Mendelberg, professor of politics at Princeton.

"Drawing upon data from politics, business meetings and behavior in the corporate boardroom, they portray a society where women participate less in many public settings, especially those in which real power is exercised. This links up with the experimental results described in Mr. Eswaran’s book, because an underparticipating group that doesn’t resist discrimination is more likely to suffer.

This sounds gloomy so far. But the authors show that once women achieve a critical mass in a particular area, their participation grows rapidly, at least after basic norms of inclusion have been established."

In german we say "His word in God's ear". I'm ready to be surprised...

Sunday, September 21, 2014

New Academic Year, New blogging...

Hi all, I'll try to start blogging somewhat regularly again, now that we're in the new academic year.

Let it be a good one to you all!


Wednesday, April 2, 2014

How to help Women negotiate

This could have been a great April 1 post, only, it isn't...

Holly Wilson (I think) writes 

"This is a jab at the insanity of sexism. So when you go to a meeting you can say, “alright, if all that separates us is a dick, then here is mine. Now lets get down to business, the playing field is level.” It is absurd that being a woman still garners unequal treatment and pay – so here is an absurd retort to that problem.

Though there’s humor here, there’s also a real statement, “here is what’s been keeping me from a job, or equal pay or fare treatment. Being devalued because of an appendage that I don’t have.” Bringing your dick to the table is all about you. It’s not going to change another persons opinion of you, but it can remind you that you are as good or even better and deserve to be sitting at that table, getting that job, making that same pay.

If you’ve ever needed that extra ounce of courage to compete, negotiate or just have your voice heard, this may be for you.

There are negative voices in our society, our culture, maybe even your own family that can corrupt your inner monologue. If holding a small bronze dick and laughing at those voices, those fears helps you overcome them, then why not?

This is not a symbol; it is just a humorous talisman to remind us sexism is ridiculous.

Lets move the mountain, make changes and laugh wildly!



Kickstarter Story

If all that separates us is a dick, then here is mine… Now lets get down to business.

Last year I was in a situation that brought me to this point here today.

I had worked out an agreement with a gallery to show my art and then after one sold he tried to change the terms. My heart and my feet went heavy; my lips went dry. I reached for my lip balm and zing! I thought I could let this take me over OR I could hold onto my “dick” and negotiate as the equal I am, not how he was treating me, like some kid who didn’t know any better.

And it worked!

Sometimes we need to remind ourselves we are equal and that we should be treated fairly in all we do in our life. Now I carry mine all the time for when I need that reminder and a little shot of courage.

This is about your inner voice

Your strength

Remembering you are more powerful than you know

And quite honestly I laugh every time I reach for my keys and touch my dick instead."

It's a kickstarter project