recent research

(A lot of) Catching up with Kevin Lewis' log of recent research:

• "Social Proof" says we like to do what everyone else is doing, but sometimes we're more likely to try something if we think it's a rare opportunity.
• Our brain has distinct processes for understanding gains vs. losses - which might explain why some of us are more in debt or have more assets.
• Citizens may be happy to let the state spend more, as long as they trust it.
• Tolerance may be a good thing in itself, but it's not necessarily good for growth.
• Thanks to cable, presidents ever more so are preaching to the choir.
• Barack's political capital problem may just be the latest example of a trend in declining presidential political capital.
• Evidence of a savvy electorate: we vote for divided government when it spends beyond its means (presumably to rein in spending) but for unified government when economic times are bad (to empower the state).
• In politicians' tension between voting with their constituents or voting with their party - it all depends on how unified their constituents are.
• Another reason parties matter: they keep last-term politicians doing their job.
• What improves our faith in democracy? Winning an election, for one.
• More evidence that humans can't stand randomness: we assume big consequences had to have had non-trivial causes.
• Politicians are more likely to persuade the opposition - by repulsion - than they are their own party-members by attraction. Experts, similarly, get more scrutiny when they contradict ones beliefs.
• Socially and fiscally mixed up liberals and conservatives are less likely to be politically involved.
• Values increase how much we process information - especially if they are cued up. Ditto extreme language.
• A model on how trust builds.
• Even though it tends to be distrusted itself, government may engender trust in society.
• Political economists explain why sometimes citizens may vote away checks and balances - and it all has to do with when politicians are easier to buy.
• More evidence that smart and happy do not go hand in hand.
• Social networks communicate in bursts and small groups.
• Even three-year-olds know they need to pay attention to the guy everyone else is paying attention to.
• Two studies show the development of equity aversion in kids.
• It takes so little to make us feel like we belong.
• Be assertive in your advertising! As long as you're advertising a guilty pleasure.
• We reevaluate our strategies when we lose; not so much when we win.
• The MIT explains how it won the DARPA balloon treasure hunt.
• We believe what we read, regardless of the credibility of the source.
• Citizen input isn't a drag on bureaucracy - rather it's a boon.
• Running for office? It helps to be a celeb.
• Whatever political orientation we get from our parents, we get through their genes.
• Another Disgust = Conservatism study. This time looking at worm-eating and gay marriage.
• Bipartisan friendships are possible, but less likely.
• The path to identification with conservatism or liberalism is sometimes more about repulsion than attraction.
• Our responses to financial and moral scandals depend on how much they're also about abuses of power.
• Although spouses usually share political views, daters don't advertise their political leanings - at least not on dating sites.
• Teenage boys are more likely to learn about politics when it gets competitive, but girls learn more where there's consensus.
• Much as in other parts of life, women only like to take charge in politics when they know what they're doing.
• Even after accounting for biases in previous studies, there's still evidence that education makes us more politically involved.
• Looking at youth political participation over the past 30 years; not much has changed, although youth today are more civicly rather than politically engaged.
• Your over-all sense of control in life says a lot about whether or not you vote.
• The rise of political talk radio may be due to two things: deregulation and iTunes.
• Another argument for how we're not less politically engaged today - but rather we're differently engaged.
• Partisans may disagree on policy issues, but they pretty much agree on civic values.
• It doesn't take much to make us feel - and act - like an inferior minority.
• We write off our group's flaws as "human nature", but don't cut our enemies the same slack.
• Even anti-social teens can become better citizens with small nudges. Progressive education also makes kids more civic minded.
• Studies that typically suggest humans are naturally altruistic may just be showing that humans like to appear altruistic.
• Want to turn someone into a do-gooder? Get them do something nice and make sure it costs them.
• Too many choices not only make consumers put off choosing - it also makes potential volunteers put off volunteering.
• We tend to look "up" to leaders.
• We may be loss averse when it comes to our survival, but in love we become risk seekers.
• Why ignorance may breed ignorance.
• Political contributions reward politicians for their beliefs rather than try to change their beliefs - and politicians' daughters can prove that's so.
• Another reason nothing gets done in DC: negative lobbying is 3.5 times more effective than positive lobbying. But not so with ballot initiatives: pro and con spending have equal pay-offs.
• We can thank high advertising rates for the rise of an independent media.
• Not what a libertarian would necessarily expect: big legislatures lead to smaller government.
• Lawmakers may not know much about policy, but - given the right institutional incentives - that might not hinder their ability to make good policy decisions.
• Newspaper subsidies may not lead to improved journalism.
• Interest groups may do just as well fueled by volunteerism as fueled by donations.
• Lobbying is effective - especially when citizens aren't paying attention.
• Reports of diminishing social networks may be premature.
• See the evolution of human cooperation in action.
• Lying comes easier online.
  
• Policy experts, save your breath: those in power aren't listening.
• Fancy yourself as an analytical gal? You may just feel out of control.
• A sociologist explains why "accidents happen."
• When we get to compare, we become more certain.
• Want to make a convincing case? Present your evidence in dribbles.
• Naive Realism (the belief that we see reality objectively) shows up in collaborations with peers.
• More evidence that politics is genetic.
• As Americans polarize, our cross-Atlantic cousins are de-polarizing.
• Another reason politicians like divisive politics: it makes them less likely to be held accountable.
• The impact of the economy on the voter is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
• 527s, as visualized as part of party networks.

my new favorite toy

Santa came early this year, pointing me to Gapminder, where international development geeks can visualize global economic and social trends til the heifers come home.

But it can also be fun for Ameri-centric users like me who are idly curious about, say, the average age women married in the US since 1800 or how much Americans drink compared to others...

To play too, be sure to click "visualize" next to your favorite indicators and then "play" the timeline. Enjoy!

curmudgeons for democracy

Popular dissatisfaction with government is usually taken as a sign that democracy is dysfunctional.

But a new study by Edward Miguel and his colleagues, as he reports in Foreign Affairs, suggests just the opposite; critical citizens are the foundation of democratic government.

Miguel was trying to figure out what might be the connection between education and levels of democracy in developing nations. (Even though there's a correlation between the two, no one agrees if what the causal link is between the two - if any.) His research team set up a randomized study, giving education incentives to one a set of girls schools in Kenya, leaving another set with no incentives. After a number of years and a clear increase in test scores at the first set of schools, they went in to see how the young women's political attitudes may have differed. Most of the obvious assumptions didn't pan out: the better educated girls were not more pro-democratic and neither were they more likely to vote or be involved in civic organizations. There was one difference: they were more critical of their government.

The study of course didn't find (or even search for) evidence to demonstrate the other half of the causal link - that is, that more critical citizens are more likely to bolster democracy - but it makes intuitive sense and is fodder for more research. At a very basic level, citizens who don't question their government aren't going to push for any change, let alone democratic change. Of course, more than dissatisfaction is needed to propel people to become politically active (usually those characteristics are bundled together into what social thinkers call "political capital"). And, of course again, too much dissatisfaction can lead to complete disaffection (of the Ted Kazcinski or couch-potato variety). But Miguel's experiment is a good reminder to us in old, creaking democracies that a critical citizenry should never be wished away.

recent research

The latest gems from Kevin Lewis' blog:

• It's harder for us to give biased advice when face to face with the advisee.
• A problem for international NGOs: our empathy is only triggered for people who are "like us."
• Don't be embarrassed about being embarrassed: people will like you more for it.
• How we read other people's minds depends on whether we think they're like ourselves or "others."
• And bilinguals may be better at intuiting others' beliefs than monolinguals.
• More evidence of the subconsciousness of bigotry: we avoid groups after receiving subliminal cues that they are a threat.
• Oxytocin: the love drug, but only if you're already "one of us."
• Our brains map out conflict in four typical ways.
• If we don't put our critical hat on immediately, we end up believing a lot of silly things.
• Politeness may be nice, but it also confuses.
• Why we think others will be happy to pay more than they actually do.
• Framing effects (that is, changing our perceptions and preferences by rewording information) are not temporary.
• Threats loom larger and closer in our minds - but can be diminished by increasing self-esteem.
• Why is right "right" and left "sinister"? It depends on whether you're left or right handed.
• Biased investigators don't get more true confessions - but they do get more false confessions.
• The biasing effect of hypothetical questions - and how it can be moderated.
• What editors have always known: editors may highlight public-affair news, but readers prefer the non-public affairs fare.
• All those cross-national studies about trust and "social capital" may be skewed by what the term "most people" means in different nations.
• Competitive elections and non-competitive elections are different animals - if we can learn anything from voter turn out and rain.
• The determining factor of whether or not we go to the polls may not be self-interest or even time on polling day - but how much political information we are able to consume.
• One other thing that nudges us to the polls: thanks for voting in the last one. As does providing election materials in ones native language.
• More evidence that voting is a socially motivated behavior.
• Making people vote sure enough gets more people to the polls - but otherwise doesn't change much.
• Pain makes us less communitarian and more capitalist.

Love in the filter bubble?

Personalization algorithms already tell us what movies to watch, news stories to read and tunes to listen to. It was only a matter of time, then, that they’d tell us who to love.

Matching algorithms aren’t new to online dating services. EHarmony, Chemistry and OKCupid have long served up compatible mates based on dozens, if not hundreds, of questions singles answer on their sites.

But a new dating app, StreetSpark, is venturing out internet-wide to pick up clues on who you’re likely to become enamored with. Love seekers on the site can plug into their Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter accounts to discover potential lovers with similar tweets, profiles and cafe haunts. (That, at least, is the concept. So far this single has yet to be sent a match.)

It’s like “traditional” online personalization but in reverse. Instead of telling you what you’ll like based upon your friends’ preferences, it tells you who you’ll want to be friends with based on what you like.

StreetSpark touts their service as giving “serendipity a helping hand.” Normally we have to wait for luck to bring us face to face with that special someone; StreetSpark provides us with a helpful homing device right in our smartphone.

It’s an odd usage of “serendipity,” though, which describes the phenomenon of making desirable discoveries by accident. If you instruct your iPhone to tell you when there’s a sympatico mate in your hood, bumping into them can’t really be described as “an accident.” Of course, the makers of StreetSpark are aware of that contradiction and are tongue and cheek in using the term.

But it’s more than a semantic quibble. Part of appreciating the beauty of “making discoveries by accident” is to understand that sometimes we don’t know what we’re looking for. If you’re a romantic, that can especially be true in the case of love. It’s not as if we have the profile of “the perfect guy” in our head and falling in love is just a matter of luck when you’ll run into that profile. The “accident” of love is when we meet someone who doesn’t fit our pre-conceived ideal and yet, mysteriously, we fall head over heals. In the process, if we’re truly lucky, we’re opened up to a new, exciting and unknown world.

re-posted from TheFilterBubble

recent research

Notable studies noted on Kevin Lewis' blog:

• Can "tone" on the internet predict social unrest and revolutions? This guy thinks so.
• When it comes to our core values, we don't really differ across cultures and country borders.
• Believing that others are less fixed in their ways makes us feel kindly toward compromise.
• We more easily remember - and so prefer - social hierarchies to non-hierarchies.
• The powerful and confident are less likely to take advice - but not more likely to have better judgment.
• How can over-confidence survive evolution? Because it can reap so many benefits.
• Stop trying to be happy - it's making you unhappy.
• One way transparency can backfire - by making politicians herd.
• Nostalgia gives us meaning.
• Progressive taxes tend to make happy nations...
• ... but that may or may not be why Americans are getting unhappier.
• Intuition about risk and markets make make most of us terrible investors.
• Getting distance on a problem or question makes us smarter - at least when it comes to budgeting.
• Macroeconomists has biases too.
• The media may cover political elites more often - but coverage of mass movements have a greater impact on public perceptions.

recent research

The every-now-and-then round up from Kevin Lewis' blog:

• Group membership in the US - and so "social capital" - is still on the wane.
• Higher status individuals are more trusting individuals.
• Human voices - as opposed to human texts - are great de-stressors (at least when they're mom's).
• Social proof (the idea that we do what every one around us does) can reduce bullying in middle schools.
• Not too shockingly, best friends influence best friends' behavior.
• More evidence that we conform to others' behavior - whether or not we think anyone knows.
• Legislators are swayed by their constituents' opinions - when they know them. Even so, lawmakers only follow majority opinion about 50% of the time.
• In another shocker, left-leaning newspapers tend to disproportionately report on Republican scandals (and right-leaning papers on Democratic ones).
• But, on the whole, the US newspapers tend to promote the views of the median voter. Although media bias may shift from year to year.
• Citizens don't completely follow their parties' leaders when it comes to policy preferences, but are able to consider factual information as well.
• How to beat a competing value: associate that value with a "extremist" group.
• It's unclear if information about policy effectiveness diffuses state borders - but there's evidence that info about policy viability does.
• Since primaries tend to elect more extreme candidates who could have a tougher time in general elections (as opposed to party-picked candidates), you'd expect primaries to exist more in solidly partisan districts - as they do.
• Why populism is so popular.
• What if campaign donations were completely anonymous? Unsurprisingly candidates would be less often swayed from their beliefs. Surprisingly, though, non-anonymous donations tend to make candidates more moderate.
• We perceive media bias through our own biases.
• We vote with our party - except when specific issues hit close to home.