Advertise on podcast: Opinion Science

To look into the future of Behavioral Economics, we talked to three young researchers who are pushing the field further. A new generation of researchers is striving to understand decision-making in the developing world, how brains process economic decisions, and how bigger, more transparent scientific methods can shed light on basic principles of choice.  This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics." For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/ For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Eventually, Behavioral Economics emerged as an influential perspective. It’s become mainstream in Economics, and it’s helped inform programs and policies that affect real people every day.  This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics." For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/ For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Behavioral Economics was using psychology to understand economics, but what did economists and psychologists think about their unexpected marriage? Slowly, this fledgling field weathered a flurry of criticism from both sides as it doggedly held onto data-driven ideas about economic decision-making.  This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics." For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/ For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky were two psychologists with big ideas about how people made decisions. Their careful research launched a brand new way of understanding people’s choices, and it helped fan the flames of Behavioral Economics. This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics." For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/ For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

For years, neoclassical economists have made an unusual assumption—that people are rational decision-makers. But a few social scientists have dared to challenge that assumption. They’ve collected observations, analyzed data, and presented their perspective. Their work would usher in a new era of Economics.  This is the second episode of a special series called: "They Thought We Were Ridiculous: The Unlikely Story of Behavioral Economics." For more information, check out the Opinion Science webpage for this series: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/they-thought-we-were-ridiculous/ For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Coming February 26th! I team up with the guys at Behavioral Groovesto produce a 5-part podcast series on behavioral economics. We tell the story of how some young social scientists took issue with assumptions that economists were making about how people make decisions, and they ended up transforming the field. Their insights went on to shape governments and businesses around the world. The whole series will drop on the Opinion Science podcast feed on February 26th. See you then! For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Jack Dovidio's work is at the heart of how we currently understand the psychology of prejudice. He's spent his career considering where prejudice comes from, how people express it, how it biases people's judgments and behaviors, and what we could do to address it. He's an emeritus professor at Yale University, and he's also just a really pleasant guy to talk to. In our conversation, we cover his early days as a social psychologist studying when people will help each other out, his research on "aversive racism," and his work studying the effects of racial bias in medical treatment. The new book out by Jack, Lou Penner, and others is: "Unequal Health: Anti-Black Racism and the Threat to America's Health" Things that come up in the intro: Gordon Allport’s “The Nature of Prejudice”Polling over time on interracial marriage (Gallup) and racial progress (Pew)Economists sell baseball cards on eBay to learn about racism (Ayres et al., 2015)A retrospective on The Nature of Prejudice (Dovidio et al., 2005)For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Jim McNulty is a professor of psychology at Florida State University. He studies close relationships, and in this episode, we talk about his research on "automatic partner attitudes." When someone sees their romantic partner, their feelings about that person spring automatically to mind. And sometimes those feelings conflict with what they openly SAY they feel about their partner. Jim shares his findings from studies that measure people's feelings toward their partners. Things that come up in this episode A longitudinal study of newlyweds shows how automatic attitudes are related to relationship outcomes years later (McNulty et al., 2013)Automatic evaluations of one's partner are related to relationship satisfaction (Turner & McNulty, 2020)Interventions that improve people's evaluations of their partners improve relationships outcomes (McNulty et al., 2017)A recent paper summarizing Jim's work on automatic evaluations of one's partner (Faure et al., 2024)For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Happy New Year! For the first time in the show's history, this episode's a day late. Sorry, dear listeners. So it's 2024, and what better way to kick off the new year than to dive into some nostalgia for 2023 already? As has become tradition around here, I compiled some clips of favorite moments on the podcast from the last year. As I say every year, it’s not truly a “best of” per se because I really am attached to every episode. Instead, I’ve chosen some clips that highlight the kind of show this is, including some of the things that made this year especially special. If you’re new to the show, this is a great place to start! And if you’ve been listening since the beginning, join me on some fun memories from this year. -Andy Featured 2023 episodes: Episode 72: Fighting Against Misinformation with Sander van der LindenEpisode 77: Opinions in the Brain with Uma KarmarkarEpisode 83: The Fundamental Nature of Opinion with Russ FazioEpisode 85: Having Curious Conversations with Mónica GuzmánSciComm Summer #18: Alie Ward on Making OlogiesSciComm Summer #19: Latif Nasser on Making RadiolabFor a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Elizabeth Dunn studies the psychology of happiness. One of her major research areas has looked at generosity's effects on well-being. We're happier when we spend money on other people. But studying happiness has its challenges, especially if we want to build strategies that help people feel happier. So, she shared a snapshot of her research on happiness and a new paper with Dunigan Folk looking at how strong the evidence is for different happiness-boosting strategies. Things that come up in this episode:  A big social experiment through the TED organization to see what people do when they receive $10,000 (Dwyer & Dunn, 2022; Dwyer et al., 2023)The benefits of generosity for our well-being (see Dunn et al., 2020; also see Episode 23 with Lara Aknin)Digging deep into the research on happiness to see how strong the evidence is for happiness-boosting strategies (Folk & Dunn, 2023; also Folk & Dunn, 2024)For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Mikaela Spruill studies juries and the legal system’s role in sustaining social inequalities. She’s a postdoctoral fellow in criminal justice with SPARQ at Stanford University. In our conversation, Mikaela shares the benefits and drawbacks of juries in the courtroom, how scientists study jury decision-making, and how jurors apply very specific legal standards to interpreting the facts of a case. Things that come up in this episode A very brief history of juries (Alschuler & Deiss, 1994; Carey, 1994; Massachusetts Office of Jury Commissioner)A summary of early research in jury decision-making (Devine et al., 2001) and the University of Chicago Jury Project (Broeder, 1959; Cornwell, 2010)The quick clip in the intro (“I’m just saying a coincidence is possible”) is from the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men.A summary of research on jury decision-making (Spruill & Hans, in press)How jurors apply the “objectively reasonable” standard to interpreting the facts of a case (Spruill & Lewis, 2022; 2023) For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

James Druckman studies how political messages can shape people's opinions. He is maybe best known for his work on framing issues as a strategic communication strategy. He also has a recent paper on "a framework for the study of persuasion," which organizes the many variables that matter for persuasion. For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/ Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.