Dr Brian Wallace

Contact Details

Email: b.j.wallace@gmail.com

Currently, I'm a data scientist at Veracode, working on a variety of data engineering and data science projects.

Previously I was a data scientist at SourceClear Inc in San Francisco, CA doing data engineering, analytics and machine learning for Software Composition Analysis.

Before joining SourceClear, I worked at UCL as a Research Fellow in the Department of Economics with interests experimental economics and behavioural psychology.

This page provides some links to my academic research (some of which is ongoing).

Published Articles

• "Other People's Money: The Role of Reciprocity and Social Uncertainty in Decisions for Others" (with Ivo Vlaev, Nicholas Wright, Antoinette Nicolle, Paul Dolan, Raymond Dolan) Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 10 (2-3). pp. 59-80, 2017. (link)

• "The Effect of Power Asymmetries on Cooperation and Punishment in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game" (with Jonathan Bone, Redouan Bshary, Nichola Raihani) PLoS ONE, 10(1): e0117183, January 2015.

• "The Impact of the Termination Rule on Cooperation in a Prisoner's Dilemma Experiment" (with Hans-Theo Normann) International Journal of Game Theory, vol. 41(3), pages 707-718, 2012 (working paper version)

• "Deferred Compensation in Multi-Period Labor Contracts: An Experimental Test of Lazear's Model" (with Steffen Huck & Andrew Seltzer) American Economic Review, vol. 101(2), pages 819-843, April 2011 (working paper version)

• "Asymmetric Enforcement of Cooperation in a Social Dilemma" (with Nikos Nikiforakis & Hans-Theo Normann) Southern Economic Journal, vol. 76(3), pages 638-659, January 2010 (working paper version)

• "Reciprocal strategies and aspiration levels in a Cournot-Stackelberg experiment" (with Steffen Huck) Economics Bulletin, vol. 3(3), pages 1-7, 2002.

Working Papers:

• "Similarity and the Trustworthiness of Distributive Judgments" (with Alex Voorhoeve, Arnaldur Stefansson) [forthcoming in Economics & Philosophy]

  • Abstract: How do people choose when they must either save a greater number of people from a smaller harm or a smaller number of people from a greater harm? Do their choices reflect a reasonable moral outlook, or are they an artefact of the use of an untrustworthy heuristic? In this paper, we examine these questions. Our results indicate that in making such choices about whom to save from harm, around two-fifths of subjects employ a similarity heuristic. When alternatives appear dissimilar in terms of the number of people that can be saved but similar in terms of the magnitude of harm from which they can be saved (where this harm is represented by a decrement in health-related well-being), this heuristic mandates saving the greater number. In our experiment, use of this heuristic leads to violations of principles of rational choice at the individual and collective level. It also leads to choices that are inconsistent with all standard theories of distributive justice. We argue that this demonstrates the untrustworthiness of moral judgments in distributive cases that elicit similarity-based choice.

• "Financial Contagion in Networks: A Market Experiment" (with Synjoo Choi, Edoardo Gallo) [June 2017]

  • Abstract: We investigate how the network structure of financial linkages and uncertainty about the location of a shock affect the likelihood of contagion and the formation of prices in a double auction market experiment. Core-periphery networks are highly susceptible to contagion and generate fire sales of assets that exacerbate financial contagion beyond the mechanical role of network structure. In contrast, contagion is minimal on circle networks and market prices remain stable. Uncertainty on the location of the shock has little influence. The traders’ comprehension level of the network-driven risk is predictive of their behavior and the likelihood of bankruptcy.

• "The impact of price frames on consumer decision making: Experimental evidence" (with Steffen Huck, Julia Schmid) [October 2015]

  • • Abstract: We present a laboratory experiment on the impact of price framing on consumer decision making. Consumer subjects face a search market where two sellers offer a homogeneous good. We examine six different price frames with linear per-unit pricing (that is displayed as such) serving as a benchmark. We find that all frames deviating from the benchmark have some negative impact on consumer decision making. The most striking result concerns drip pricing (where prices are decomposed into three elements and "dripped in" during the purchasing process). While leaving the actual decision problem unchanged, drip pricing wipes out 22% of consumer surplus.

Price framing research

Recently, with Steffen Huck, we conducted a laboratory experiment that investigated the effects of price framing on decision making as if in a retail setting. Prices frames encountered include '3 for 2', 'price was x now y', 'sale ends tomorrow', 'price is x while stocks last' and '...plus shipping'.

The report, entitled "The effects of price framing on consumer decision making", is available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/economic_research/OFT1226.pdf. A working paper is available above.

Media coverage of the report include:

• "Economics focus: You've been framed" in The Economist - see http://www.economist.com/node/16216606

• "OFT warns retailers about 'misleading' price offers" at the BBC news website - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11894445