Robustness in health research: Do differences in health measures, techniques, and time frame matter?

Robustness in health research: Do differences in health measures, techniques, and time frame matter?
Paul Frijters, Aydogan Ulker
Journal of Health Economics
Volume 27, Issue 6, December 2008, Pages 1626–1644

Abstract
Survey-based health research is in a boom phase following an increased amount of health spending in OECD countries and the interest in ageing. A general characteristic of survey-based health research is its diversity. Different studies are based on different health questions in different datasets; they use different statistical techniques; they differ in whether they approach health from an ordinal or cardinal perspective; and they differ in whether they measure short-term or long-term effects. The question in this paper is simple: do these differences matter for the findings? We investigate the effects of life-style choices (drinking, smoking, exercise) and income on six measures of health in the US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) between 1992 and 2002: (1) self-assessed general health status, (2) problems with undertaking daily tasks and chores, (3) mental health indicators, (4) BMI, (5) the presence of serious long-term health conditions, and (6) mortality. We compare ordinal models with cardinal models; we compare models with fixed effects to models without fixed-effects; and we compare short-term effects to long-term effects. We find considerable variation in the impact of different determinants on our chosen health outcome measures; we find that it matters whether ordinality or cardinality is assumed; we find substantial differences between estimates that account for fixed effects versus those that do not; and we find that short-run and long-run effects differ greatly. All this implies that health is an even more complicated notion than hitherto thought, defying generalizations from one measure to the others or one methodology to another.

JEL classification C23; C25; I31; Z1
Keywords Morbidity; Mortality; Lifestyle; Income

Ungated Version

Linkedin

My Linkedin profile is on this link  May use Linkedin as a way of developing aspects of the research center. Suggestions welcome. At present, we are using a square website (link here) and a twitter account (link here) and this blog to keep people informed about what we are doing.

The trouble with brain scans

A breath of fresh air to see informed skepticism about neuroimaging in the press:

Vaughan Bell: the trouble with brain scans

The points in the article are elaborated and the original sources included here.

Readers of this blog recently reviewed articles in 'genoeconomics' (listed here, with key questions here) which have clearly stated the statistical power considerations required in order to identify the genetic factors (mainly in the form of variation in single-nucleotide polymorphisms) that contribute to behaviour. Recurring throughout these articles was the mantra that genetic variation which is common in the population has very (very) small effects on behavioural traits. There are likely to be a few exceptions but by and large this appears to be the rule. The vast majority of studies showing large effects of single-nucleotide polymorphisms on complex traits such as intelligence are likely to be false positives/findings which fail to replicate, as demonstrated here.

A similar theme is emerging from the neuroimaging literature. One implication is that the statement "neuroscientists identify the brain area for (fill in your own favourite psychological characteristic - happiness, jealousy, helping, intelligence, the neural basis of social and physical pain (r = .88) etc.)" is likely to be as false as the similarly tantalizing headline "neuroscientists find the gene responsible for (fill in the blank)".  Tal Yarkoni, an exponent of appropriate consideration of the shortcomings and power limitations (and associated incentives for small samples and a lack of statistical transparency) of many neuroimaging studies, summarizes this well:

"...we expect complicated psychological states or processes–e.g., decoding speech, experiencing love, or maintaining multiple pieces of information in mind–to depend on neural circuitry widely distributed throughout the brain, most of which are probably going to play a relatively minor role. The problem is that when we conduct fMRI studies with small samples at very stringent statistical thresholds, we’re strongly biased to detect only a small fraction of the ‘true’ effects, and because of the bias, the effects we do detect will seem much stronger than they actually are in the real world. The result is that fMRI studies will paradoxically tend to produce *less* interesting results as the sample size gets bigger. Which means your odds of getting a paper into a journal like Science or Nature are, in many cases, much higher if you only collect data from 20 subjects than if you collect data from 200. The net result is that we have hundreds of very small studies in the literature that report very exciting results but are unlikely to ever be directly replicated, because researchers don’t have much of an incentive to collect the large samples needed to get a really good picture of what’s going on."

Population Association of America 2012

The annual PAA conference took place recently in San Francisco. This is comparable in size and scope to the AEA and is mainly focused on demography but also covers research in economics, ageing, and development (amongst others). Over 200 sessions were organised, the topics being:

Fertility, Family Planning, Sexual Behaviour, and Reproductive Health
Marriage, Family, Households, and Unions
Children and Youth
Health and Mortality
Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
Migration and Urbanization
Economy, Labour Force, Education, and Inequality
Population, Development, and Environment
Population and Aging
Data and Methods
Applied Demography

All papers are available for download on the PAA website.

http://paa2012.princeton.edu/SessionsByTopic.aspx

Some highlights:

The Economics of Fertility
New Evidence on School Reforms and Child Outcomes
Longevity and Life Expectancy

There were two sessions chaired by Richard Easterlin:

Happiness and Economic and Social Well-Being
Happiness in International Perspective

Quantitative Methods in Psychology & Economics Wed 20 Jun

This exciting one-day workshop is aimed at doctoral students in both psychology and economics.  In the morning session "Analysing Psychological Data Using Mixed-Effects Models", we will describe new ways in which psychologists are attempting to find patterns in data collected from experiments or from naturalistic samples. 

We will explain why the R statistical programming language is gaining traction in Psychology, and we will offer examples of the kinds of research designs and analyses that mixed-effects models make possible; and we will offer guidance on current best practice for analyses.  We will present evidence from recent simulations suggesting that mixed-effects models should be used with caution, and show that, in some situations, good-old ANOVA is still a useful statistical tool. 

The afternoon session, "Incorporating Subjective and Psycholmetric Measures into Economics: Issues and Applications", examines the use of self-reported or subjective measures in economic applications. Firstly we examine survey design and principles for sound construction of survey measures. Secondly we examine basic linear and non-linear econometric methods for the analysis of survey data. Thirdly we examine the use of subjective measures as dependent variables in standard regression designs. In particular, we consider differential item functioning, namely respondents to survey questions using different criteria for judging what the question means. Finally, we examine the incorporation of self-reported and subjective measures in economic studies as explanatory variables explaining outcomes such as health and education.

Channel 4 Secret Eaters

The modern fly-on-the-wall type documentary isn't usually my thing but I really enjoyed the Channel 4 documentary "Secret Eaters". A family agrees to both fill out food diaries tracking calorie consumption and also to be tracked using hidden cameras. The basic gist of the show is that almost all family members report consuming something around the recommended 2,000 or so calories on any given day. However, these estimates turn out to be wild underestimates largely due to ignoring portion sizes, not counting alcohol, not tracking soft-drink monitoring and other factors. In the case of both parents, they were actually consuming more than double the calories they reported were. There are many caveats in terms of this being a TV show, a sample size of one and many others like that but there is growing evidence of behavioural factors in overeating (see e.g. AER papers and proceedings paper "Strategies for promoting healthier food choice").

Always wear your seatbelt

Via Marie, this seatbelt safety advertisement tugs strongly at the heart strings. An interesting use of a strong emotional set of images to reinforce a safety message. It has been downloaded over 14 million times on youtube which is, at least, a metric of the reach of the ad.

Ireland's Favourite Painting

Below is a photograph of Ireland's favourite painting - Hellelil and Hildebrand, The Meeting on the Turret Stairs by Frederic William Burton. The painting was chosen by public vote. The journal.ie quotes the Irish President reflecting on the value of art on this link. The poll has generated some interesting debate on the value of art in general.

11th TIBER Symposium on Psychology and Economics

Below is from Decision Science News blog - link here

TIBER, the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research is happy to announce the 11 Tiber Symposium on Psychology and Economics, to be held on August 24, 2012.

The symposium aims to bring together Economists, Psychologists, Marketing researchers and others who work on Behavioral Decision Making, either in individual or interdependent settings. The symposium will be held at Tilburg th University and consists of two keynotes, a number of parallel sessions with presentations of about 20 to 30 minutes, and a poster session.
This year’s keynote speakers are:

- George Loewenstein

- Colin Camerer

The goal of this series of symposia is to establish contact and discussion between researchers of the different fields. We look for empirical contributions from diverse fields, such as Individual Decision Making, Consumer Behavior, Bargaining, Social Dilemmas, Experimental Games, Emotions, Fairness and Justice, Rational Choice, and related subjects.

CALL FOR PAPERS

If you would like to contribute to this symposium by presenting a paper, we ask you to send an abstract of max. 300 words via email to Diana Vingerhoets (D.Vingerhoets@tilburguniversity.edu). Please use subject: TIBER XI in your email.

On the basis of these abstracts we will select presenters for the symposium. Please indicate whether you would be willing to present your research in a poster session by adding Poster: Yes or Poster: No to your submission.

IMPORTANT DATES

18th of April Call for papers

1st of June Deadline for submission of abstracts

18th of June Selection of speakers

11th of August Normal registration deadline (late registration fee applies after this date)

24th of August Symposium at Tilburg University

More information about the program of the symposium and the keynote speakers, as well as the location of the symposium and the registration forms will soon be available here.

If you have any questions regarding the conference, please contact Job van Wolferen (J.vanWolferen@tilburguniversity.edu). Again, please use subject: TIBER XI. Other organizers include Ilja van Beest, Rik Pieters, Jan Potters, and Marcel Zeelenberg.

Regulating Bodies & Influencing Health: Nudges, Incentives and Public Policy

Speaking at this very interesting session organised by the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester. Details on this link or below.


26th June 2012

09.00-16.15

Government and policy-makers on both sides of the Atlantic have begun to draw on behavioural research when constructing health-affecting public policy and legislation. The relevant studies suggest that individuals are susceptible to a range of influences upon the decisions they make; for example, choices are shaped by the presentation of certain options as defaults or how available options are framed. Is it appropriate to use this knowledge to ‘nudge’ the public towards making better health-affecting decisions? Are such interventions ethically justifiable? Do they wrongly interfere with individual autonomous choice? Can they be justified by appeal to the idea of so-called ‘libertarian paternalism’, through promoting individuals’ interests whilst also preserving their liberty? Can, and if so ought, the state remain neutral in relation to such policy choices? This symposium will bring together philosophers, lawyers, economists, and social scientists and will focus on the use of nudges (and other ways of influencing) as policy measures for influencing the public’s health.

Speakers include
Mark D. White, Professor and Chair in Political Science, Economics and Philosophy, City University of New York
Kyle Powys Whyte, Assistant Professor in Philosophy, Michigan State University
Liam Delaney, SIRE Professor of Economics, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics, University of Stirling
Muireann Quigley, Lecturer in Bioethics, Centre for Social Ethics & Policy, University of Manchester
Tom Walker, Lecturer in Ethics, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University
Jane Wilson, Independent researcher, Sydney
Yashar Saghai, Doctoral Candidate in Philosophy, Georgetown University
John Coggon, Research Fellow, Institute for Science, Ethics, & Innovation, University of Manchester
James Wilson, Lecturer in Philosophy and Health, Centre for Philosophy, Justice, & Health, University College London
Marianne Promberger, Research Fellow in Psychology, Centre for the Study of Incentives in Health, King’s College London
Henriette Prast, Chair & Prof of Personal Financial Planning, Tilburg University


Attendance is free. Lunch and refreshments will be provided. However, places are limited due to the venue size. You must register for this event in advance by emailing: health-nudges@manchester.ac.uk with your name and affiliation.

Tuesday Links

It has been a while since we have done a links update. A lot of activity that might have been carried out on the blog before has migrated to twitter, with all the relative advantages and disadvantages that entails.

1. Headstrong report on mental health among Irish young people.

2. BBC article on the rise of the adult playground, including comments by Richard Thaler.

3. Interesting scientific american article summarising research on academic blogging.

4. Defending social science against those who would prefer to know nothing 

5. Bloomberg article on facebook's organ donation move.

6. Unliver's approach to sustainable consumption.

Organ Donation Consent Systems Paper

Looking for pre-distribution comments on organ donation consent paper. Clare's summary of the conference presentation is below. If interested/willing to offer comments please email.


Summary of conference presentation:

Ireland has an organ donation rate of 21.2 donors per million population (pmp), higher than the United Kingdom (16.3 donors pmp) but lower than the current world leader, Spain (33.8 donors pmp). Despite these figures, in 2009 there were 515 people on the waiting list for donations. Of the 154 donors available for referral in 2009, 90 ultimately donated their organs, 42 were deemed medically unsuitable and in 22 cases the family refused consent.

There are three main systems of eliciting individual consent for organ donation. The first is informed consent, wherein consent is not assumed and individuals must consciously decide to become donors by opting into the system - for instance, by getting a donor card, telling their relatives or signing up to a registry. Ireland, the UK and Germany all operate informed consent systems. An alternative system is presumed consent, wherein consent for donation is assumed, and individuals must opt-out by signing a register or informing their next of kin if they do not wish to donate. Spain and Austria currently use a presumed consent system. Finally, mandated choice makes no assumptions about consent, and instead simply requires that individuals make a choice either way. Such a system is currently being trialled in the UK. When applying for driver’s licenses, applicants are now required to answer a question about donation before they can proceed with their application.

Behavioural economics research has suggested that changing from an informed consent to a presumed consent system would increase the number of donors available for transplant by harnessing the tendency people have to stick with a default. For instance, in a UK Transplant survey, 17 per cent of respondents intended to sign up to the register but 'hadn't got around to joining', as the default option is not to be on it.  It is argued that presumed consent systems avoid the low levels of take up seen in opt-in systems, which are a product of procrastination or inertia. By assuming consent while allowing those who object to opt out of donating, you should increase the number of donors by including those who would otherwise put off signing up into the system automatically. Some research papers have found 25-30 per cent differences in rates between informed and presumed consent countries, even controlling for other factors which may influence rates (Abadie and Gay, 2006).

However, a closer analysis of consent for donation carried out by Healy (2006) suggests that the solution to increasing donor rates may not be so simple. In all but one OECD country investigated, the family of the deceased are offered a veto in deciding about donation; their consent is sought before any harvesting takes place. As a result, ultimately, it is the next of kin who decide whether the deceased’s organs will be transplanted or not. Indeed, Minister for Health James Reilly recently stated that“No organ removal will ever happen against the wishes of a family. Full Stop." Research on family consent suggests that actions like signing up to a registry or getting an organ donor card may serve as important signals to family members about donation preferences, UK data shows that families refuse consent in 10 per cent of cases when they knew the wishes of the deceased, but in 40 per cent of cases where they did not know.

These findings have a number of implications. Firstly, the role of insights from behavioural economics in a family consent framework compared to an individual consent structure is less clear; cultural factors such as the role of family in society may play a more important part in determining levels of donation. Abadie and Gay (2006) suggest that the two different systems may still produce different donation rates, as they provide different cues for families, and thus influence consent levels. If most people in these two systems stick with the status quo, families in informed consent systems may infer that if the deceased did not opt-in, they did not have strong preferences to donate, whereas under a presumed consent system those who did not opt-out are not likely to have had strong preferences not to donate. Families may be more likely to conclude that the deceased would have consented to organ donation in a presumed consent system because of the framing.

Secondly, it is an open question as to whether it is possible or desirable to eliminate the role of the family in decision making around consent. It is hard to imagine a doctor knowingly going against the wishes of a family, particularly during what is surely a very stressful, high-pressured environment. However, the scope for individual autonomy in such a system is unclear; as it does not seem to be possible to ensure that your organs are or are not transplanted in the event of death, beyond asking family members to honour your wishes. Is it possible to retain a sense of individual autonomy within a system that also allows for family consent? Pete Lunn suggested at the conference that organ donor cards or registries could allow for people to state whether they wish for their family to have a right to make a decision about donation for them.  Again, it is not certain whether this would make doctors more likely to follow the wishes of the individual over those of the family in the event of conflict, but it may reduce instances of such conflict by convincing the family of the deceased’s wishes.  

Finally, the extent to which people are aware of the organ donation system (and arecent Eurobarometer survey would suggest that they are not - only 25 per cent of Europeans know the regulations governing organ donation in their own country) in place may also influence individual opinions on this issue. Many people I have discussed this with are unaware that their wishes regarding organ donation do not have to be upheld.  The role of organ donor awareness campaigns could also be rethought, is it worth launching campaigns which aim to increase levels of family consent rather than individual consent, given the current system?

Some useful guides for PhD students

I will add to this post over time and republish but two particularly useful ones below:

1. Alex Wood at Manchester has a really useful guide for psychology PhD students.

2. Anna Zimars of King's College has another guide for students more generally. (via Kevin Denny)

Presenting Survey Items One at a Time

Presenting Survey Items One at a Time Compared to All at Once Decreases Missing Data without Sacrificing Validity in Research with Internet Volunteers

Abstract: In two large web-based studies, across five distinct criteria, presenting survey items one-at-a-time was psychometrically either the same or better than presenting survey items all-at-once on a single web page to volunteer participants. In the one-at-a-time format, participants were no more likely to drop-out of the study (Criterion 1), and were much more likely to provide answers for the survey items (Criterion 2). Rehabilitating participants who otherwise would not have provided survey responses with the one-at-a-time format did not damage internal consistency of the measures (Criterion 3) nor did it negatively affect criterion validity (Criterion 4). Finally, the one-at-a-time format was more efficient with participants completing it more quickly than the all-at-once format (Criterion 5). In short, the one-at-a-time format results in less missing data with a shorter presentation time, and ultimately more power to detect relations among variables.

Citation: Nosek BA, Sriram N, Umansky E (2012) Presenting Survey Items One at a Time Compared to All at Once Decreases Missing Data without Sacrificing Validity in Research with Internet Volunteers. PLoS ONE 7(5): e36771.

Positions in Behavioural Economics QUT

Below is from Lionel Page of QUT: http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/page4/

I am glad to let you know that several positions are opened in our School of Economics for early career researchers at the Assistant Professor level. We are looking in particular for researchers in behavioural/experimental economics to join our group (http://qubegroup.wordpress.com/). Given your own research in the area, please do not hesitate to forward this information to any potential applicant you may know.

Here are the details of the positions:

-          Three Postdoc positions level B (Assistant Professor level): http://www.inomics.com/economics/jobs/2012/5/16/postdoctoral-research-fellow-3-positions,

-          One Lecturer position level B (Assistant Professor level) on a more restricted range of fields: https://qut.nga.net.au/publicfiles/qut/jobs/60501a51-3e17-48c5-99f0-a05100e0a3fb/12253%20QUT%20Business%20School%20Position%20Description.pdf

Potential candidates are very much welcome to contact me to have more information on our research in behavioural/experimental economics.

JEBO Special Issue on Well-Being and GDP

Important special issue of JEBO with several papers on well-being measurements and determinants.

The Chocolate Machine

Recently, Bloomberg Businessweek ran a story about a team of German psychologists who have built the Chocolate Machine: a product designed to improve self-control. The machine is "very simple: a tube reminiscent of a tall sleek Pez dispenser that, every 40 to 60 minutes, releases a chocolate ball onto a person’s desk. The recipient could then eat it or put it back into the machine. When the subjects started the study, they were told that putting the chocolate back into the machine would help build their willpower... The concept behind the machine is something called ego depletion, a model for how self-control and decision-making works, most associated with the American psychologist Roy Baumeister." There is also a paper on this, the abstract of which is available here. 

Nudging Citizens Towards Localism?

Nudging Citizens Towards Localism? was released on 16th May by the British Academy Policy Centre. The research found that "the exact relationship between government action, citizen behaviours and effective public outcomes remains hazy, despite examples of good practice and robust evidence across government. There are real opportunities to use the nudge approach at a local level, but without more experiments to close the gap in evidence, government is unlikely to achieve more than moderate changes in citizen behaviour." More information about the report is available here.

Postfamine stature and socioeconomic status in Ireland

Postfamine stature and socioeconomic status in Ireland

American Journal of Human Biology, Volume 20, Issue 6, pages 726–731, November/December 2008

Kristin Young, John H. Relethford, Michael H. Crawford

Abstract

Previous research has documented socioeconomic stratification of secular trend in height in historical populations. Using data from 4,900 males and 1,430 females born between 1840 and 1910 collected as part of the Harvard Anthropological Survey of Ireland (1934–1936), this study examined the secular changes in postfamine Ireland using several socioeconomic variables, including: occupation, migration, education, siblings, birthplace, and occupation of father and mother's father. Correlations were also calculated between height and various historical economic indices. Significant differences in the height of Irish males were found by occupation, education, and socioeconomic status of father and maternal grandfather. Males employed in agriculture, or whose fathers or grandfathers were so employed, were significantly taller than other males. For the smaller female sample, only occupation and grandfather's socioeconomic status had a significant impact on height. An inverse correlation was also found between the British Cost of Living Index (BCL) and male heights. Our results suggest that availability of resources plays an important role in the overall nutritional status reflected in terminal adult height.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.20807/abstract

Economics, Psychology and Policy Workshop 15th June

The second in our series of workshops on economics, psychology and policy takes place June 15th in the Cottrell Building in Stirling. I am using this post to update the programme and precise timings and room number will be posted here shortly. Details of the previous session are here. Please email claremdelargy@gmail.com to confirm a place.

Our new research group in Stirling will launch in October. Our preliminary webpage is here and twitter feed is here. We very much welcome suggestions for developing the group, ideas for collaboration and offers for sponsorship of workshops and events.  We even welcome, from the creative among you, suggestions for a name before "Stirling EconPsych" sticks.

Stirling Workshop Series in Economics, Psychology and Policy 

June 15th,

Stirling University Cottrell Building

9.am -5.pm

9.00 Clare Delargy (UCD) "Gender and SES differences in earnings expectations:
survey and field experiment evidence".

9.30 Nick Hanley (Stirling) "Information effects in random utility models"

10.00 Dave Comerford (Duke) "Cigarette substitutes or Nicotine Replacement
Therapies? implications for public health"

10.30 BREAK

10.40 Eimear Crowe (UCD and St Vincents) "Examining social interaction effects on
mood using Day Reconstruction"

11.10 Alberto Montagnoli & Mirko Moro (Stirling). "Mood and Decision Making"

11.40 Roger Sugden & Malido Mooken (Stirling) "Capabilities approach to
academia"

12.10 LUNCH

13.10 Adam Kleczkowski & Savi Maharak (Stirling) "Controlling epidemic spread
by responding to risk: Do it well or not at all"

13.40 Aniko Biro (Edinburgh) "An analysis of mammography decisions"

14.20 Michael Daly (Aberdeen) "Self-control, smoking and policy effectiveness".

14.50 BREAK

15.00 Georgios Panos (Stirling). "Risk tolerance and entrepreneurship"

15.30 Liam Delaney (Stirling) "Behavioural economics and health policy"

16.00 Pete Lunn (ESRI) "A Good Deal on My Mind: Experiments On Willingness
to Exchange”

17.00 END

Journal club on personality stability and change

The papers for the online journal club tomorrow are below (2pm using Google hangout). It is on personality stability and change over the lifespan. We will discuss how personality changes, why, the effects of life events and interventions, and why these changes might be important for welfare and other economic outcomes.

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span:Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847-861.

Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personalityacross the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-leveland rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862-882.

 

The key questions that will be covered in the journal club are outlined below:

What is personality and why is personality research important for contemporary social science? (see Funder et al., 2010 article, posted by Martin in his comment below).

How is the stability of personality typically measured? (population-level/mean-level stability and differential/rank-order stability) (see Lucas & Donnellan above and also Almlund, Duckworth, Heckman, & Kautz, 2011 pages 170-180).

Why is stability/change in personality relevant to economics?

What patterns of change in mean-levels and rank-order differences in personality are typically observed over the lifespan? (principally, increases in C and A and decreases in N, some evidence O and E decline; increasing/cumulative consistency; little evidence that traits are ‘set in plaster’ by age 30 as often cited from W. James 1892, also see Specht et al., 2011 above pg . 863)

What effect might within-trait interactions have on such patterns? (e.g. social dominance increases over the lifespan whilst another component of extraversion, social vitality decreases).

What are the effects of genetic (ontogenic) versus social role changes (sociogenic) causes in determining personality change/stability (see Almlund et al., 2011 pg. 176). What role might biological factors more generally have towards the end of life? (curvilinear patterns?) What potential implications might this have?

Can we distinguish between normative and non-normative causes of personality stability/change? Where non-normative may include intentionally driven changes, such as those derived from selecting into interventions, and also effects of atypical life events that do not occur in clear life-stages (e.g. trauma of sibling death, divorce, potentially the effect of unemployment).

What is the role of measurement error? (stability estimates are higher when accounted for). How is it likely to vary based on the number of items in the personality measure? How do Lucas & Donnellan, 2011 estimate this? (‘disattenuate’ rank-order stability from measurement error using latent variable modelling).

How does the GSOEP personality data work? What is the sample and what measure is used in the papers reviewed (John et al., 1991)? How does this measure line up with more extensive versions? How reliable are the personality traits measured and how does the measure perform over time?

What patterns of stability (see page 853 of Lucas & Donnellan) and mean-level change findings (see page 854, page 872 of Specht et al.- differences?) were identified?

What mechanisms might underlie these patterns of stability/change?

What effect does repeatedly filling out the measure have (panel-conditioning effects)? Was there evidence of period and cohort effects?

Can specific life events affect personality? (see Specht et al., 2011 above) What sample characteristics are required to detect these? (large, heterogeneous, longitudinal).

Again, biological maturation vs. socialization (e.g. demands of new roles, the expectancies of others, feedback from interaction etc.) is the key argument. Secondary to this is the question as to what extent socialization (see page 879 of Specht et al.) and selection effects (e.g. choosing particular situations – extraverts more likely to experience positive events, opposite for neurotic individuals – see page 876 of Specht et al. for summary of findings) can be separated. So personality can lead to and change as a result of major life events (see page 867 for list of those examined) and this was a central point of investigation for Lucas & Donnellan (2011).

Behavioural Economics and the Facebook IPO

Facebook, the social network, has raised $16bn in an initial public offering that values the company at $104bn, meaning it is now among the 25 most valuable public groups in the United States. This recent article by John Wasik (Reuters Money) discusses whether or not it is a good idea to get a piece of the action. Daniel Kahneman declined to comment specifically on Facebook, but raised the importance of a number of behavioural biases: overconfidence, optimism-bias and anchoring; to name a few. Liam has blogged before on behavioural finance, and I flagged the work of James Montier in a comment on that post. Avanidhar Subrahmanyam's review of the behavioural finance literature is available here, free-to-access.

5th Irish Economics and Psychology Event November

The 5th in the series of conferences on economics and psychology in Ireland will take place on November 30th in the ESRI in Dublin. The previous four have been very energetic workshops including keynote talks from John O'Doherty, Arie Kapteyn and David Laibson. People who are interested in presenting should email me or Peter Lunn.

Nancy Cartwright: What can economists know?

The recent INET session in Berlin contained a staggering array of brilliant and innovative thinkers. All the videos from the event are available here. Many are very relevant for behavioural and microeconomics. I will post more of them as I get a chance to look at some more. Nancy Cartwright is a philosopher that anyone who works on causal microeconometrics should read. Below is her talk from the event considering the question of causal inference in Economics. Cartwright is regularly cited by people like Heckman and Deaton. She provides a strong philosophical background to understanding the strengths and limits of methodologies such as IV, use of natural experiments and Randomised Controlled Trials.

Heights and human welfare: Recent developments and new directions

Heights and human welfare: Recent developments and new directions
Steckel, R.H.
Special Issue on Heights and Human Welfare
Explorations in Economic History, Volume 46, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1-23

Abstract

Since 1995 approximately 325 publications on stature have appeared in the social sciences, which is more than a four-fold increase in the rate of production relative to the period 1977-1994. The expansion occurred in several areas, but especially within economics, indicating that heights are now widely accepted as useful measure of human welfare. Much of this new work extends beyond the traditional bailiwick of anthropometric history, including biological welfare during economic and political crises; anthropometric determinants of wages; the welfare of women relative to men in the contemporary world; the fetal origins hypothesis; and inequality in the developing world. The approach has also expanded within economic history to consider the consequences of empire for colonials; the health of populations lacking traditional measures of social performance; the consequences of smallpox; and very long-term trends in health. Much has also been learned about socioeconomic aspects of inequality, the welfare implications of industrialization, and socioeconomic determinants of stature. The last is a work in progress and one may doubt whether sufficient longitudinal evidence will become available for a complete understanding of the variety and strength of pathways that affect human physical growth. 

 

Ungated Version:

http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2008/diciembre/w14536.pdf

Talks at Google

Google make available many  of the talks they put on through the following youtube channel. Many talk that might of interest to readers here including a number of talks on mindfulness (e.g. here and here ), as well as talks from Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, Daniel Goleman, Steven Pinker, Paul Krugman and many others. Some may be out-of-date in the sense that the authors have developed their thoughts since but timeless ideas also. 

While on the subject of online resources for behavioural economics and related fields, the History and Rationality series of the Center for the Study of Rationality at Hebrew University is another rich resource.

Plausibly Exogenous

Plausibly Exogenous

Recent Review of Economics and Statistics paper 

• Timothy G. Conley
  (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago)
• Christian B. Hansen
  (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago)
• Peter E. Rossi
  (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago)

Abstract

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to identify causal effects in models with endogenous explanatory variables. Often the instrument exclusion restriction that underlies the validity of the usual IV inference is suspect; that is, instruments are only plausibly exogenous. We present practical methods for performing inference while relaxing the exclusion restriction. We illustrate the approaches with empirical examples that examine the effect of 401(k) participation on asset accumulation, price elasticity of demand for margarine, and returns to schooling. We find that inference is informative even with a substantial relaxation of the exclusion restriction in two of the three cases.

Economic Journal Special Issue: Foundations of Revealed Preference

May 2012, Volume 122, Issue 560, Pages 287–554

This conference issue follows on from the CEMMAP-sponsored special session on the Foundations of Revealed Preference at the RES Annual Conference, April 2011.

1. Foundations of Revealed Preference: Introduction (pages 287–294)
   Frederic Vermeulen
   

   • Abstract
   • Full Article (HTML) 
2. Afriat’s Theorem and the Index Number Problem (pages 295–304)
   S. N. Afriat
   

   • Abstract
   • Full Article (HTML)
3. Afriat's Theorem and some Extensions to Choice under Uncertainty (pages 305–331)
   W. Erwin Diewert
   

   • Abstract
   • Full Article (HTML)
4. Revealed Preference and its Applications (pages 332–338)
   Hal R. Varian
   

   • Abstract
   • Full Article (HTML)

Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments

Useful advice for when trying to implement IV.

Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments
Michael P. Murray
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 4—Fall 2006—Pages 111–132

Archimedes said, “Give me the place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the Earth” (Hirsch, Kett, and Trefil, 2002, p. 476). Economists have their own powerful lever: the instrumental variable estimator. The instrumental variable estimator can avoid the bias that ordinary least squares suffers when an explanatory variable in a regression is correlated with the regression’s disturbance term. But, like Archimedes’ lever, instrumental variable estimation requires both a valid instrument on which to stand and an instrument that isn’t too short (or “too weak”). This paper briefly reviews instrumental variable estimation, discusses classic strategies for avoiding invalid instruments (instruments themselves correlated with the regression’s disturbances), and describes recently developed strategies for coping with weak instruments (instruments only weakly correlated with the offending explanator).

http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Guiso/Courses/Econometrics/Murray_IV_jep_06.pdf

"I Wanted to Predict Elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper"

Full download available from the arXiv.org website:

"I Wanted to Predict Elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper" -- A Balanced Survey on Election Prediction using Twitter Data

Daniel Gayo-Avello

(Submitted on 28 Apr 2012)

Predicting X from Twitter is a popular fad within the Twitter research subculture. It seems both appealing and relatively easy. Among such kind of studies, electoral prediction is maybe the most attractive, and at this moment there is a growing body of literature on such a topic. This is not only an interesting research problem but, above all, it is extremely difficult. However, most of the authors seem to be more interested in claiming positive results than in providing sound and reproducible methods. It is also especially worrisome that many recent papers seem to only acknowledge those studies supporting the idea of Twitter predicting elections, instead of conducting a balanced literature review showing both sides of the matter. After reading many of such papers I have decided to write such a survey myself. Hence, in this paper, every study relevant to the matter of electoral prediction using social media is commented. From this review it can be concluded that the predictive power of Twitter regarding elections has been greatly exaggerated, and that hard research problems still lie ahead.

Journal club on genoeconomics

The key questions that will be covered in the journal club are outlined below:

What are genes (or more correctly/generally, what are the key components of DNA)? (see pages 62 of Beauchamp et al. (2011) in JEP and page 6 of Benjamin et al. (in press) in the AER).

What are the main approaches to measuring genetic effects and measuring aspects of DNA directly? (see pages 63-64 in Beauchamp et al. (2011) and pages 20-22 of Benjamin et al. (in press)).

How heritable is behaviour?

 What are the core issues in interpreting causal effects of genetic data?

What are the key methodological considerations in genetic measurement ? Why do candidate gene studies fail to replicate? What are examples of this? (see pages 71 to 75 of Beauchamp et al. (2011) and24-38 of Benjamin et al. (in press), and Chabris et al. (in press)).

What research has been done to test the link between genetics and economics?  (14-16 and page 23-24 of Benjamin et al., (in press) and Benjamin et al. (2012) PNAS article).

What appears to be the best way forward in 'genoeconomics' research? What will this research contribute?

What is the role of the measurment of economics preferences in this research agenda?

Evaluating State Programmes - “Natural Experiments” and Propensity Scores

Evaluating State Programmes - “Natural Experiments” and Propensity Scores

Denis Conniffe
Vanessa Gash
Philip J. O'Connell

The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, October, 2000, pp. 283-308

Abstract
Evaluations of programmes — for example, labour market interventions such as employment schemes and training courses — usually involve comparison of the performance of a treatment group (recipients of the programme) with a control group (non-recipients) as regards some response (gaining employment, for example). But the ideal of randomisation of individuals to groups is rarely possible in the social sciences and there may be substantial differences between groups in the distributions of individual characteristics that can affect response. Past practice in economics has been to try to use multiple regression models to adjust away the differences in observed characteristics, while also testing for sample selection bias. The Propensity Score approach, which is widely applied in epidemiology and related fields, focuses on the idea that “matching” individuals in the groups should be compared. The appropriate matching measure is usually taken to be the prior probability of programme participation. This paper describes the key ideas of the Propensity Score method and illustrates its application by reanalysis of some Irish data on training courses.

http://www.esr.ie/vol31_4/1Conniffe.pdf

Group Name for Stirling EconPsych

An issue at present is to have a good name for the research group evolving at Stirling that will launch in October. We currently use the name Stirling EconPsych (see website  http://stirlingeconpsych.squarespace.com/ and twitter account https://twitter.com/StirlingEconPsy ).

Presently, the group is coordinated by myself and Michael Daly, who will shortly join Stirling as a faculty member. Several other Stirling faculty are involved as associates and several others from other universities are also involved as associates (see list of people http://stirlingeconpsych.squarespace.com/people/). We are currently finalising the selection of some funded PhD students to begin in September. We have also received a Marie Curie grant to look at well-being and unemployment in Europe and one three-year contract will be advertised on this soon. We are also running regular workshops (last one here and next one here). We have been running a very interesting online book and journal club session (details here ) and hope to expand these throughout the year. Subject to approval from the university, we will also run an MA in Economics, Psychology and Policy from September 2013. Topics that will be investigated by the group include, but are not limited to, measurement and determinants of well-being; the biological and psychological foundations of economic preferences; early life foundations of later health and behaviour; unemployment and well-being; the effect of information provision and framing on complex behaviours

Finding a good name to encapsulate this activity would be great. At present, we do not plan to formulate as a formal research center or Institute, so names that include center or institute should probably be avoided. 

I don't want to announce a formal prize for best acronym on the blog but I will be nice to whoever wins. Send suggestions either by email or through the comments. The last time I had a competition for a group name it was won by Rob who came up with WEDEPLOY for our eventually successful Marie-Curie application. Rob received a bottle of wine for his trouble/ingenuity.

Harvard Innovation Lab: Pymetrics

The previous post referred to one project in the Harvard Innovation Lab. Another that might be of interest to readers of this blog is Pymetrics (https://pymetrics.com/index/ ). Below is a description from their website. 

"The pymetrics assessment tests will help you learn more about your cognitive and personality style using the most advanced techniques. 
Over the past decade, researchers at universities have developed novel ways of assessing cognition and personality. Things they have learned to assess include:

• How risk-taking are you?

• How well do you learn from mistakes?

• How do you respond to reward and punishment?

• How well do you read emotion on people's faces?

The difference between these novel assessment tests and typical personality tests is that instead of getting information from you answering questions about yourself, we get information about you from having you perform short computerized tests.
These tests have been used almost exclusively for research purposes. pymetrics is taking these advances and launching them outside the research lab."

Learning Catalytics

This software looks a potentially very useful way of managing interactive activity in lectures and tutorials.

Group logo

A few colour versions for those who think the black is too dull/sinister!

Proper Warhol style!

Logo for Group

Via Michael, not sure if this is the one but looks good?

Institute for Advanced Behavioural Studies

The Institute for Advanced Behavioural Studies' new website has just been launched. The mission of the institute is to act as a facilitator on behavioural research, bringing together partners such as Gallup, the OECD or the RAND Corporation. IFABS organises events on behavioural issues and also publishes a working paper series. Also check out the research news feed, which compiles new behavioural research from several online sources.

Recent genoeconomics papers

Benjamin, Daniel J., David Cesarini, Matthijs J.H.M. van der Loos, Christopher T. Dawes, Philipp D. Koellinger, Patrik K.E. Magnusson, Christopher F. Chabris, Dalton Conley, David I. Laibson, Magnus Johannesson, and Peter M. Visscher (forthcoming). “The Molecular Genetic Architecture of Economic and Political Preferences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Benjamin, Daniel J., David Cesarini, Christopher F. Chabris, Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, Vilmundur Guðnason, Tamara B. Harris, Lenore J. Launer, Shaun Purcell, Albert Vernon Smith, Magnus Johannesson, Patrik K.E. Magnusson, Jonathan P. Beauchamp, Nicholas A. Christakis, Craig S. Atwood, Benjamin Hebert, Jeremy Freese, Robert M. Hauser, Taissa S. Hauser, Alexander Grankvist, Christina M. Hultman, and Paul Lichtenstein (forthcoming). “The Promises and Pitfalls of Genoeconomics.” Annual Review of Economics.

Beauchamp, J. P., D. Cesarini, M. Johannesson, M. van der Loos, P. Koellinger, P. J. F. Groenen, J. H. Fowler, N. Rosenquist, A. R. Thurik, N. A. Christakis. (2011). "Molecular genetics and economics." Journal of Economic Perspectives.

A related paper on false positive rates in research examining identifiable genetic factors thought to contribute to human intelligence:

Chabris, Christopher F., Benjamin M. Hebert, Daniel J. Benjamin, Jonathan P. Beauchamp, David Cesarini, Matthijs J.H.M. van der Loos, Magnus Johannesson, Patrik K.E. Magnusson, Paul Lichtenstein, Craig S. Atwood, Jeremy Freese, Taissa S. Hauser, Robert M. Hauser, Nicholas A. Christakis, and David Laibson (forthcoming). “Most Published Genetic Associations with General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives.” Psychological Science.

.

Grid-Enabled Measures Database

"GEM (Grid-Enabled Measures) is an interactive website containing behavioral, social science, and other scientific measures organized by theoretical constructs. GEM enables researchers to collaborate with others, encourages the use of common measures, and facilitates the sharing of harmonized data."

List of functions performed by this wiki platform:                                           

• Users can search for a construct (e.g., anxiety, depression), see a definition of the construct, view its theoretical foundation, and download different measures of the construct.
• Users can also search for a measure and see attributes of that measure (e.g., definition, target population, author, reliability, validity), including the associated construct.
• Users can also examine usage statistics, comments, and ratings from other GEM users about measures to help decide which measure to use in future research.
• Users can contribute to the virtual community by adding or editing meta-data about constructs and measures and commenting on and rating measures.
• Datasets using GEM measures and constructs may be available for downloading and sharing.

Olivier Ouiller TEDx talk: Emorationality: Dealing with the obvious

Olivier Ouiller's talk is below. Deals with neuro-basis of behaviour; policy interventions; health policy; environmental policy; "nudge" and related topics.

BBC Lab UK

"BBC Lab UK experiments are designed and approved by scientists and academics at the forefront of research in their field. If you have an idea for an experiment, we'd like to hear from you."

Prior experiments have examined stress, personality and a particularly interesting large scale study tested the effects of brain game training, described below.

"The Brain Test Britain experiment, launched on Lab UK in September 2009, was designed to find out if playing brain training games really does have benefits that transfer to other brain skills, like memory, planning or problem-solving. We asked the public to help us by brain training three times a week for a minimum of six weeks - and you responded in your thousands. Of the 67,000 people who signed up to take part in Brain Test Britain, more than 13,000 completed the initial six-week brain training period, making this by far the largest ever study of computer-based brain training. The Brain Test Britain study found no evidence that the benefits of playing brain training games transfer to other brain skills."

Results published in Nature: Putting brain training to the test.

Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets

1. Ayelet Gneezy^a,¹,
2. Uri Gneezy^a,^b,
3. Gerhard Riener^c,^d, and
4. Leif D. Nelson^e

We investigate the role of identity and self-image consideration under “pay-what-you-want” pricing. Results from three field experiments show that often, when granted the opportunity to name the price of a product, fewer consumers choose to buy it than when the price is fixed and low. We show that this opt-out behavior is driven largely by individuals’ identity and self-image concerns; individuals feel bad when they pay less than the “appropriate” price, causing them to pass on the opportunity to purchase the product altogether.

LINK TO ARTICLE HERE and HERE

Princeton/Brookings: Future of Children

The latest in the Future of Children series is on Children with Disabilities. Contains a chapter on "Childhood Health: Trends and Consequences over the Life Course" written by me and James P Smith

Goldenballs Contestant uses game theory strategy

Golden Balls is a gameshow that finishes by getting two finalists to play a modified version of the prisoners' dilemma. There have been some really interesting cases in this game. The one below is absolutely brilliant - well worth watching.

Scottish Graduate School of Social Science Summer School

Summer School June 2012

The Scottish Graduate School of Social Science (SGS) is delighted to unveil the programme for its first annual Summer School, to be held at the University of Edinburgh in June 2012. The Summer School will offer a wide range of exciting events which run either for a full or half day, and each evening affords the opportunity to attend a unique plenary event, bringing together speakers from Scotland with international speakers across the social sciences. 

Full Programme

Student Registration Form  

Summary Programme 

Day(s)	Event
13-15 June	AQMEN Training: Multilevel Modelling
Monday 18 June	Advanced Workshop in Finance & Market-based Accounting Research
	Politics & International Relations Workshop
	Public Policy Challenge Workshop: Making an Impact with Social Science
	NVivo Software Demonstration [afternoon event]
	Plenary: David Bell "The Peculiar Economics of Scottish Independence" & Patrick Jackson "Three Boundaries to Loosen in the Global Study of World Politics"
Tuesday 19 June	Business & Management with Prof Derek Pugh
	Human Geography: Contemporary Research Themes
	Information Science Doctoral Colloquium (iDocQ)
	Language-based Area Studies: Area Studies & Translating Cultures
	Social Anthropology: Creative Practices & Social Scientific Research
	NVivo Software Lab-based Training
	Plenary: Tim Ingold "Knowing from the Inside" & TBC
19-20 June	Secondary Data Analysis Lab-based Training
Wednesday 20 June	Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Students Workshop
	Quantitative Methods in Psychology & Economics
	Exploring Knowledge Exchange
	Information Science: Discourse Analysis [morning event]
	Planning Your Academic Career: What makes a successful academic? [morning event]
	Social Work: The Impact of Research [afternoon event]
	NVivo Software Demonstration [afternoon event]
	Plenary: Liam Delaney "Stress & Financial Decision Making" & Mike Burton "What are we so bad at face recognition?"
21-22 June	AQMEN Training: Regression Modelling for Categorical Data