Spring 2018 Sessions
Thursday, March 1, 2018 – 1:30-3pm
Cornhole, or Randomized Control Trials for Dummies
J. Nathan Matias, Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Center for Information Technology Policy and Lecturer in Sociology
On a daily basis, campus administrators use a variety of quantitative methods to evaluate whether their programs or policies are working: data visualization, spreadsheets, web analytics, and even machine learning. Experimental methods, however, are sometimes seen as inaccessible or even incomprehensible. Administrators are invited to join Nathan Matias for a fun workshop that introduces the concepts of running randomized trials with human subjects and a conversation about how a variety of administrative shops on campus could incorporate them into their regular pursuits (and may already be doing without knowing it. (A/B testing, anyone?) Attendees will take part in a control study while playing the backyard favorite, Cornhole. Along the way, administrators will learn about inductive and deductive knowledge, predictors and outcomes, causal and correlational relationships, and potential threats to a study’s validity. This fun, hands-on session will not only help attendees improve their bean-bag throwing skills, but also learn how to apply experimental methods in the projects their teams undertake.
Please register to attend no later than Tuesday, February 27.
February 15, 2018
Perspective-taking and Prospect Theory: Considering Reference Points, Loss Aversion, and the Endowment Effect
Johannes Haushofer, Assistant Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
Have you ever had to communicate to your stakeholders a change in policy? Have you considered what they have to gain and what they have to lose? By understanding the foundations of prospect theory—the work that earned Danny Kahneman his Nobel Prize—administrators may be positioned better to consider how the people they serve make decisions under uncertainty. In this session, attendees came to understand how individuals begin the decision-making process from different reference points and often evaluate the potential losses and gains quickly, differentially, and what program creators may consider suboptimally. Professor Johannes Haushofer presented the intertwined topics of reference points, loss aversion, and the endowment effect and helped administrators consider how they can account for these behaviors to address a number of University challenges—from considering new vendors to offering new benefits. Providing both theory and applied examples, the session allowed attendees to return to their own domains and approach policy and program changes and the necessary communication campaigns with a new set of insights.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Datta, S., & Mullanaithan, S. (2014). Behavioral Design: A New Approach to Development Policy. The Review of Income and Wealth, 6(1), 7-35. Doi: 10.1111/roiw.12093
What is a Survey? (And What Isn't)
December 5, 2017
In this session, we invited Ed Freeland, Associate Director of the Princeton Survey Research Center, to help administrators and researchers understand the necessary components for quality survey development, administration, and analysis. He discussed vital considerations such as designing representative samples and weighing the relative merits of different formats and surveying tools. Ed also gave an overview of the services provided by the SRC and other campus resources to students, faculty, and staff from consulting on the design of surveys to finding the best tools to use to conduct a survey and analyze its results. The session provided both theory and applied examples that should help attendees build better surveys within their own domains.
November 7, 2017
In this session, we invited Nate Cheek from the Department of Psychology to explain behavioral insights behind why the way choices are presented and explained can influence the choices that individuals make. By way of a brief presentation from Nate, attendees gained an understanding of how the choices we make can be shaped by powerful forces such as defaults, the order in which options are presented, and the size and complexity of available options, as well as how we might experimentally test ways to make choices easier and better in a way that provides evidence for data-informed policy changes. This session was rounded out by a discussion of campus challenges that require people to make a choice between alternatives (e.g. enrolling in benefits plans; making transportation decisions; choosing among a list of suppliers; etc.) and how the way information is presented may have a systematic impact on how people feel about their choices and what they ultimately choose. Providing both theory and applied examples, the session allowed attendees to take these insights back to their own domains and apply them when they need to present options to those they serve.
Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, Yale University Press. Chapter 5, Choice Architecture, pp. 81-100.
Johnson, E.J., et al. (2012). Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 487-504. Doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1
Intention-Action Gaps & Associated Behavioral Phenomena
May 5, 2017
In this session, we invited Alin Coman, from the Department of Psychology and Woodrow Wilson School, to deliver a brief presentation on Intention-Action gaps and associated behavioral phenomena. This led into a discussion of campus challenges that involve people not carrying through on what they know to be the “right” thing to do (e.g. enrolling in life insurance; turning lights off when not in use; consuming more nutritious foods; etc.). Alin’s prefacing presentation and notes from a few campus partners who face these issues were a jumping off point for other administrators to share the ways they see these gaps manifest in their own work. The session provided both theory and applied examples that may help attendees to identify these gaps more clearly and outline potential mitigation strategies in their own domains.
Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (2013). Psychological levers of behavior change. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (pp. 301-309). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schwartz, J., Mochon, D., Wyper, L., Maroba, J., Patel, D., & Ariely, D. (2014). Healthier by precommitment. Psychological Science, 25(2), 538-546. doi: 10.1177/0956797613510950