Research
Working Papers
Abstract: I examine whether prior exposure to dissonant information and people’s beliefs drive information avoidance. More specifically, I focus on the topic of abortion and consider two main beliefs on abortion: anti-abortion (opposes abortion rights) and pro-choice (advocates abortion rights). In experiments with US respondents, I first vary the prior exposure to information - whether the information participants receive is in line with or contrary to their beliefs. I then measure avoidance of dissonant information. Overall, 43% of the participants are willing to avoid dissonant information at a material cost of 44% of their money. Prior exposure to information is insignificant, however, what matters is the beliefs. Being anti-abortion or pro-choice explains the difference in willingness to pay to avoid dissonant information. Anti-abortion participants are willing to spend a substantially higher proportion of their money (10%) to avoid dissonant information than pro-choice participants, suggesting that no matter what prior information a person has been exposed to, the belief they currently hold explains the intensity of information avoidance.
Abstract: We investigate if, when and why good advice is ignored in a controlled online experiment. In our experiment subjects (advisees) completed effort-based and luck-based tasks, and then had the choice to submit either their own score or that of another, the high-scoring subject (advisers). Good advice was ignored: about 2 to 12% of the time, advisees chose to submit their own score instead of higher-scoring advisers, reducing their payoff. When the adviser was superior in luck rather than skill, good advice was ignored more often. Advisees seemed to trade off their irrationality with the value of the advice. When the material gain of the advice was bigger, advisees followed the good advice more frequently. We do not find any relation between the propensity to ignore good advice and the three main behavioural forces: envy, stubbornness, and sunk cost fallacy. We also present evidence on the effect of uncertainty and outcome detachment on ignoring good advice. Advisees ignored good advice more often when the advice was presented as an outcome of a separate event.
Abstract: We provide a statistical investigation of the role of the saliency of (dis)honesty on future behaviour in a multi-wave pre-registered experiment with 1,260 subjects. In the first wave, we vary the saliency of subjects’ past dishonesty and explore the impact on behaviour in tasks that include the scope to lie. In the second wave, we vary the degree of competitiveness in one of our core tasks to further explore the interactions between saliency, (dis)honesty and competition. In a single-player task being asked to recall experiences that involve honesty or dishonesty reduces dishonesty in the task. This is true when we compare both games in wave 1 of our experiment and when we purposefully make one of our tasks more competitive in wave 2. On the other hand, in a competitive environment in which subjects could earn more by lying to their counterparts, inducing them to think more about (dis)honesty pushes them towards becoming more dishonest. We are also careful to test for any possible demand effect and perform text analysis to provide independent verification of the success of our treatments.
Selected Works in Progress
(At the data collection stage)
Eat your veggies, Coventry: Encouraging consumer choice for a shift to a healthier diet, RCT Analysis with Thijs Van Rens, Oyinlola Oyebede, Petra Hanson, Lena Alkhudaairy, Lukasz Walasek, Redzo Mujcic, Rob Lillywhite, Thomas M. Barber, Martine Barons
(Applying for funding)