Works in progress

Abstract: The impact of smartphones and social media use on adolescent mental health remains widely debated. To clarify expert opinion, we convened over 120 international researchers from 11 disciplines, representing a broad range of views. Using a Delphi method, the panel evaluated 26 claims covering international trends in adolescent mental health, causal links to smartphones and social media, and policy recommendations. The experts suggested 1,400 references and produced a consensus statement for each claim. The following conclusions were rated as accurate or somewhat accurate by 92–97% of respondents: First, adolescent mental health has declined in several Western countries over the past 20 years. Second, heavy smartphone and social media use can cause sleep problems. Third, smartphone and social media use correlate with attention problems and behavioural addiction. Fourth, among girls, social media use may be associated with body dissatisfaction, perfectionism, exposure to mental disorders, and risk of sexual harassment and predation. Fifth, evidence on social deprivation and relational aggression is limited. Sixth, the evidence for policies like age restrictions and school bans is preliminary. Overall, the results of this deliberative process and the set of concrete recommendations provided can help guide future research and evidence-informed policy on adolescent technology use. 


Abstract: In an online experiment, we examine how ingroup bias and fairness concerns shape the redistributive preferences of UK resident natives and immigrants. Natives and immigrants were paired in a series of distributive situations. They chose how to divide a pie created from either party's previous contributions and stated what they believed to be their fair share from the vantage point of UK residents acting as unbiased spectators. In a complementary survey, we obtained these spectator divisions. We found that natives' and immigrants' distributive choices were absent ingroup bias. Their choices were, however, selfishly biased, as they invoked the fact that the pie was created solely from their own contributions. This behavior was eliminated when it disproportionately harmed the partner. Their fairness beliefs showed evidence of egocentric norm adoption: they favored equity as contributors and equality as noncontributors. They also believed that spectators would negatively discriminate against immigrants in favor of natives, but this perception was unfounded in light of spectators' divisions. We discuss the implications of our results for immigration research and integration policies.

Click for the detailed AER preregistration here.


Abstract: People often judge how embarrassing an activity or condition is on the basis of its perceived prevalence. They infer prevalence in part by considering how often they hear other people discussing it.  But how often a condition is discussed is a function not only of its prevalence but also of how embarrassing it is. If people fail to take this into account, they will tend to judge embarrassing conditions as being rarer, which will accentuate their embarrassment, and, in turn, further amplify their reluctance to disclose those conditions -- a ``spiral" of shame and silence.  We present results from two studies that support the existence of such a feedback process.  The first, a cross-sectional survey study, asked respondents a series of questions about different embarrassing and non-embarrassing conditions.  Respondents (1) indicated whether they had the conditions, (2) judged how embarrassing the conditions were, (3) reported whether they had disclosed, or would disclose, having the conditions to others, and (4) estimated what fraction of survey respondents had the conditions.  As predicted, reports of disclosure were negatively related to judgments of embarrassment, and when embarrassment was greater, estimates of prevalence were lower, both for conditions that respondents had and for conditions they did not have.   The second, an experimental study, manipulated whether people received a high or low estimate of population prevalence for 5 different conditions, and found that receiving a high prevalence estimate reduced embarrassment and increased self-reported willingness to disclose the condition to others, and vice versa. 


Summary: Women seek help for their bothersome health issues if they anticipate that the rapport will bring them help, information, and emotional support, while embarrassment as second-order belief and first order self-report are not meaningfully associated with women's willingness to self-disclose.


Abstract: We study whether welfare chauvinistic attitudes (WC) are more like general redistributive attitudes or are driven by immigrant-specific attitudes and beliefs.  In a preregistered (AEARCTR-0014897) survey-experiment of a representative sample of 1,822 UK citizens, we measure WC attitudes for Universal Credit (UC), which is a means-tested benefit in the UK. We find that increasingly restrictive WC attitudes are predicted by immigrant-specific rather than immigrant-neutral beliefs and attitudes, or impartial fairness preferences.  Natives' beliefs that immigrants are exploiting the UC scheme, blaming them for their poverty, and anti-foreigner attitudes predominantly and robustly explain WC attitudes.  In contrast, we find no associations between WC attitudes and fairness preferences or immigrant-neutral inequality beliefs and redistributive attitudes. Among immigrant-neutral predictors, we only observe beliefs in a just world to be linked to WC attitudes. We make contributions to uncovering the drivers of WC attitudes and their measurement, and conclude with policy recommendations. 


Summary: In two experiments, we demonstrate that meritocratic illusion emerges in spectators' sequential redistributive choices.  


Summary: In three studies, we demonstrate that people value medical indemnity payments more when they are paid out-of-pocket than via an insurance scheme and that these asymmetric valuations are shared norms among participants.