Thursday, October 31, 2013

Self-Esteem of Men suffers from female success

In the new issue of JPSP there is an interesting article by Kate A. Ratliff and Shigehiro Oishi  "Gender Differences in Implicit Self-Esteem Following a Romantic Partner’s Success or Failure"

The abstract reads

This research examined the influence of a romantic partner’s success or failure on one’s own implicit and explicit self-esteem. In Experiment 1, men had lower implicit self-esteem when their partner did well at a “social intelligence” task than when their partner did poorly. Women’s implicit self-esteem was unaffected by partner performance. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that Dutch men’s implicit self-esteem was negatively affected by their romantic partner’s success. In Experiment 4, we replicated Experiments 1–3 in both the academic and social domains, and in Experiment 5, we demonstrated that men’s implicit self-esteem is negatively influenced by thinking about a romantic partner’s success both when the success is relative and when it is not. In sum, men’s implicit self-esteem is lower when a partner succeeds than when a partner fails, whereas women’s implicit self-esteem is not. These gender differences have important implications for understanding social comparison in romantic relationships.

Most of their results are only present in an Implicit Association Task, and not in explicit measures of self-esteem, here is one of their typical figures.



Wednesday, October 30, 2013

New Publishing Practices in Psychology

Luke Coffman pointed me to the following: "What’s New at Psychological Science
An Interview with Editor in Chief Eric Eich"

One big thing is Enhanced Reporting on Methods, which includes something like:

For each study reported in your manuscript, check the boxes below to:
(1) Confirm that (a) the total number of excluded observations and (b) the reasons for doing so have been reported in the Method section(s) [ ]. If no observations were excluded, check here [ ].
(2) Confirm that all independent variables or manipulations, whether successful or failed, have been reported in the Method section(s) [ ]. If there were no independent variables or manipulations, as in the case of correlational research, check here [ ].
(3) Confirm that all dependent variables or measures that were analyzed for this article’s target research question have been reported in the Method section(s) [ ].
(4) Confirm (a) how sample size was determined and (b) your data-collection stopping rule have been reported in the Method section(s) [ ] and provide the page number(s) on which this information appears in your manuscript:

Then they go on

"Several points merit attention. First, as shown above, the four-item Disclosure Statement applies only “to each study reported in your manuscript.” Originally, we considered adding a fifth item covering additional studies, including pilot work, that were not mentioned in the main text but that tested the same research question. However, feedback from several sources suggested that this would open a large can of worms. To paraphrase one commentator (Leif Nelson), it is all too easy for a researcher to think that an excluded study does not count. Furthermore, this actually puts a meaningful burden on the “full disclosure” researcher. The four items in the Disclosure Statement shown above are equally easy for everyone to answer; either that information is already in the manuscript or they can go back and add it. But a potential fifth item, covering additional studies, is different. The researcher who convinces himself or herself that one or more excluded studies don’t count has now saved the hours it might take to write them up for this query. File-drawering studies is damaging, but we are not convinced that this will solve that problem. A better solution involves preregistration of study methods and analyses — an approach we also take up."

Another big item seems Promoting Open Practices. They go on

"Over the past several months, a group of 11 researchers led by Brian Nosek has been grappling with these and other issues. The result is an Open Practices document that proposes three forms of acknowledgment:

  • Open Data badge, which is earned for making publicly available the digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported result.
  • Open Materials badge, which is earned for making publicly available the digitally shareable materials/methods necessary to reproduce the reported results.
  • Preregistered badge, which is earned for having a preregistered design and analysis plan for the reported research and reporting results according to that plan. An analysis plan includes specification of the variables and the analyses that will be conducted. Preregistration is an effective countermeasure to the file-drawer problem alluded to earlier in connection with Disclosure Statements.

The criteria for each badge — and the processes by which they are awarded — are described in the Open Practices document along with answers to frequently asked questions. The document proposes two ways for certifying organizations to award badges for individual studies: disclosure or peer review. For now, PS will follow the simpler disclosure method.

Manuscripts accepted for publication on or after 1 January, 2014, are eligible to earn any or all of the three aforementioned badges. Journal staff will contact the corresponding authors with details on the badge-awarding process.

Psychological Science is the first journal to implement the badge program, so changes are sure to come as editors and authors gain experience with it in the field. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions for improvement from our community."

I'll be curious about their usage and success with the registry: I have blogged about similar attempts in Economics before here.

A big impetus has been work by Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn, some of which I talked about here



Monday, October 28, 2013

How to get answers to loaded questions

My former student Luke Coffman has a new paper joint with Katie Coffman and Keith Ericson on "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Anti-Gay Sentiment are Substantially Underestimated"

The abstract reads:
Measuring sexual orientation, behavior, and related opinions is difficult because responses are biased  towards socially acceptable answers. We test whether measurements are biased even when responses are private and anonymous and use our results to identify sexuality-related norms and how they vary. We run an experiment on 2,516 U.S. participants. Participants were randomly assigned to either a “best practices method” that was computer-based and provides privacy and anonymity, or to a “veiled elicitation method” that further conceals individual responses. Answers in the veiled method preclude inference about any particular individual, but can be used to accurately estimate statistics about the population. Comparing the two methods shows sexuality-related questions receive biased responses even under current best practices, and, for many questions, the bias is substantial. The veiled method increased self-reports of non-heterosexual identity by 65% (p<0.05) and same-sex sexual experiences by 59% (p<0.01). The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work (p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01).The results show non-heterosexuality and anti-gay sentiment are substantially underestimated in existing surveys, and the privacy afforded by current best practices is not always sufficient to eliminate bias. Finally, our results identify two social norms: it is perceived as socially undesirable both to be open about being gay, and to be unaccepting of gay individuals.


Saturday, October 26, 2013

Academic fraud

The Economist has a nice article on a different type of academic fraud: "Looks Good on Paper". I guess we all got "invitations" to present our work in Economics and everything else style conferences, here is how to push that further...

"these criminals were producing something more intellectual: fake scholarly articles which they sold to academics, and counterfeit versions of existing medical journals in which they sold publication slots.

As China tries to take its seat at the top table of global academia, the criminal underworld has seized on a feature in its research system: the fact that research grants and promotions are awarded on the basis of the number of articles published, not on the quality of the original research. This has fostered an industry of plagiarism, invented research and fake journals that Wuhan University estimated in 2009 was worth $150m, a fivefold increase on just two years earlier."

They cite a study from PNAS:

Ferric C. Fang R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall, "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientiļ¬c publications"

Their abstract includes:

"A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%)."

The main picture is






Friday, October 25, 2013

ESA in Santa Cruz

The next two days: ESA Santa Cruz!
Below is the progam

October 24, 5:30 - 8:00 pm

  • Welcome Reception, Hotel Paradox
  • Registration Desk Open, Hotel Paradox

Friday, October 25, 8:00 am -9:00 am

Plenary Session: Rachel Croson, University of Texas Arlington, "Experimental Economics Imperialism"
Chair: Tim Cason

Friday, October 25, 7:30 am - 6:30 pm

Registration Desk Open, Hotel Paradox
Paradox Breakfast Buffet, Solaire Restaurant, 6:30 - 8:30 am
Paradox Lunch Buffet, Solaire Restaurant, 12:00 - 1:20 pm

Friday, October 25, 9am - 6:00 pm

Experimental Software and Hardware Demos, Hotel Paradox

Friday, October 25, 9:20am - 10:20am

Session 1, Sequoia A: Auctions: Bidding Behavior

Session 2, Sequoia B: Conflict and Contests

Session 3, Sequoia C: Games: Sophistication and Expertise

Session 4, Sequoia D: Market Design 1

Session 5, Grove: Risk Preference

Session 6, Cypress: Interpersonal Influence

Session 7, Fitness Center: Cooperation and Institutions 2

Friday, October 25, 10:40am - 12:00pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Decision Making Under Ambiguity

Session 2, Sequoia B: Repeated Games 1

Session 3, Sequoia C: Finance 1

Session 4, Sequoia D: Belief Formation

Session 5, Grove: Environmental 1

Session 6, Cypress: Bargaining (Behavioral)

Session 7, Fitness Center: Cooperation and Institutions 1

Friday, October 25, 1:20pm - 2:40pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Networks

Session 2, Sequoia B: Repeated Games 2

Session 3, Sequoia C: Finance 2

Session 4, Sequoia D: Special Session: Pay Protocols

Session 5, Grove: Environmental 2

Session 6, Cypress: Labor 1

Session 7, Fitness Center: Beliefs and Others Behavior

Friday, October 25, 3:00pm - 4:20pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Cooperation and Institutions 3

Session 2, Sequoia B: Repeated Games 3

Session 3, Sequoia C: Industrial Organization 1

Session 4, Sequoia D: Biased Beliefs

Session 5, Grove: Behavioral Finance

Session 6, Cypress: Inequality and Social Preferences

Session 7, Fitness Center: Legislative Bargaining and Committtee Behavior

Friday, October 25, 4:40pm - 6:00pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Cooperation and Institutions 4

Session 2, Sequoia B: Risk Preference: Social Effects

Session 3, Sequoia C: Industrial Organization 2

Session 4, Sequoia D: Norms

Session 5, Grove: Labor 2

Session 6, Cypress: Charitable Contributions 1

Session 7, Fitness Center: Voting Behavior


Saturday, October 26, 8:00am - 9:00am

Plenary Session:
Welcome: Sheldon Kamieniecki, Dean of Social Sciences, UCSC
Speaker: Al Roth, Stanford University, "Market Design" [tentative]
Chair: Dan Friedman

Saturday, October 26, 8:00 am - 10:00 am

Registration Desk Open, Hotel Paradox
Paradox Breakfast Buffet, Solaire Restaurant, 6:30 - 8:30 am
Paradox Lunch Buffet, Solaire Restaurant, 12:00 - 1:20 pm

Saturday, October 26, 9am - 6:00 pm

Experimental Software and Hardware Demos, Hotel Paradox

Saturday, October 26, 9:20am - 10:20am

Session 1, Sequoia A: Learning

Session 2, Sequoia B: Social Information 1

Session 3, Sequoia C: Survey Methods: Characterizing Behavior

Session 4, Sequoia D: Gender 1

Session 5, Grove: Market Design 2

Session 6, Cypress: Charity 2

Session 7, Fitness Center: Dynamic Choice

Saturday, October 26, 10:40am - 12:00pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Spatial Interactions

Session 2, Sequoia B: Social Information 2

Session 3, Sequoia C: Lab to Field 1

Session 4, Sequoia D: Gender 2

Session 5, Grove: Firm Behavior 1

Session 6, Cypress: Lies and Deception

Session 7, Fitness Center: Tournaments and Contests 1

Saturday, October 26, 1:20pm - 2:40pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Cooperation and Institutions 5

Session 2, Sequoia B: Experimental Methodology

Session 3, Sequoia C: Social Preferences 1

Session 4, Sequoia D: Time Preferences

Session 5, Grove: Strategic Sophistication

Session 6, Cypress: Gender and Stereotypes

Session 7, Fitness Center: Tournaments and Contests 2

Session 8, Poolside: Preferences and Behavior

Saturday, October 26, 3:00pm - 4:20pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Coordination

Session 2, Sequoia B: Lab to Field 2

Session 3, Sequoia C: Social Preferences 2

Session 4, Sequoia D: Charitable Contributions 2

Session 5, Grove: Experiments in Development

Session 6, Cypress: Macroeconomics

Session 7, Fitness Center: Auctions: Institutions

Saturday, October 26, 4:40pm - 6:00pm

Session 1, Sequoia A: Communication and Cooperation

Session 2, Sequoia B: Lab to Field 3

Session 3, Sequoia C: Social Preferences 3

Session 4, Sequoia D: New Data: Inference from Decision Times

Session 5, Grove: Reference Dependent Preferences

Session 6, Cypress: Trust and Trustworthiness

Session 7, Fitness Center: Auctions: Incentives