Research

Working Papers

Abstract:  This study examines whether temporary affirmative action can mitigate biased beliefs held by employers and subsequently improve representation even after the policy expires. I conduct an experiment where I analyze employer hiring decisions and their beliefs regarding potential employee performance across two experimental treatments: a control treatment without affirmative action and a temporary affirmative action treatment. In the control treatment, biases against women are evident both in employer beliefs and hiring outcomes. However, under the temporary affirmative action condition, I observed sustained improvements in women's representation and in employer beliefs about their performance even after the policy period.  Notably, employers who initially exhibit stronger biases against women demonstrate the most significant reduction in gender bias in their beliefs, explaining a subsequent increase in hiring women. These findings highlight the potential of temporary affirmative action policies to disrupt self-perpetuating under-representation by correcting biased beliefs among employers.

Online Appendix


Abstract: We examine the experimenter's preferences over different populations using statistical power under a fixed budget as the stand-in for the researcher's utility. We consider five populations commonly used in experiments by economists: undergraduate students at a physical location, undergraduate students in a virtual setting, Amazon MTurk "workers", a filtered MTurk subset from CloudResearch, and Prolific. Focusing on noise due to inattention, observation costs dominate the comparisons, with the larger online population samples superior to the smaller lab samples. However, once we factor in responsiveness to treatment, the lab samples have greater power than either MTurk or Prolific.


Abstract: Excuse-seeking behavior that facilitates replacing altruistic choices with self-interested ones has been documented in several domains. In a laboratory study, we replicate three leading papers on this topic: Dana et al. (2007), and the use of information avoidance; Exley (2015), and the use of differential risk preferences; and Di Tella et al. (2015), and the use of motivated beliefs. The replications were conducted as part of a graduate course, attempting to embed one answer to the growing call for experimental replications within the pedagogic process. We fully replicate the simpler Dana et al. paper, and broadly replicate the core findings for the other two projects, though with reduced effect sizes and a failure to replicate on some secondary measures. Finally, we attempt to connect behaviors to facilitate the understanding of how each fit within the broader literature. However, we find no connections across domains.

Technical Report

Abstract: This guide provides a detailed account of procedures for conducting traditional in-person laboratory experiments in a “virtual setting.” The main objective of these procedures is to maintain the control of traditional in-person lab studies when conducting studies over the internet. Using the participant pool of the in-person lab the key procedural steps include participants having their webcams on throughout the experiment, technical screenings, and attention pledges, playing pre-recorded instructions out loud, upholding clear experimenter roles and communication protocols when interacting with participants, and finally detailed and scripted procedures for managing participants throughout the session. The described procedures have been used for more than 100 sessions and have secured results that are indistinguishable from those from the in-person lab.

Selected Works In Progress