On this page, I list articles that I like and briefly describe why I think they’re worth reading. To be sure, I’m not saying I could not find anything wrong with these papers, it’s just that they have many things I thought were good.
In light of p-hacking and pre-registration discussions, I’ve come up with the following inclusion criteria:
- I have read and understood the article.
- The paper provides an empirical contribution (so no literature reviews or theoretical articles).
- I like the paper.
You can find the original motivation for this page here.
Articles I Like
(Listed alphabetically based on 1st author)
Bar-Hillel, M., & Maharshak, A. (2012). A rose by any other name: A social-cognitive perspective on poets and poetry. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(2), 149–164. link Simple, thorough, and properly powered tests of whether poems seem better when allegedly written by famous poets.
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–8. link Insane dataset with randomnization on Facebook, finds that effect of social media is tiny.
Brandt, M. (2013). Social Status and Legitimacy 1 Do the Disadvantaged Legitimize the Social System? A Large-Scale Test of the Status-Legitimacy Hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(5), 765-785. link Great data, crucial test of one of the pillars of System Justification Theory.
Chetty, R., Looney, A., & Kroft, K. (2009). Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1145–1177. link Great experiment that finds that posting prices including taxes reduces demand for alcohol more than increasing tax at the register.
Dave, D., & Kaestner, R. (2009). Health insurance and ex ante moral hazard: evidence from Medicare. International journal of health care finance and economics, 9(4), 367–90. link Best test of ex ante moral hazard (insurance-induced risk-taking) in health insurance I could find when writing this paper.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149–60. link Ok, I deviated from inclusion criterion #2. But, everybody who runs experiments should use G*Power to determine sample size a priori. That’s why it’s on this list.
Gould, E., & Klor, E. (2010). Does terrorism work? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(4), 1459-1510. link Great data on Israel-Palestine struggles, and answer is “yes, in some cases”. Terrorism seems to increase (right-wing) Israeli’s willingness to concede territory to Palestinians.
Kelly, I. R., & Markowitz, S. (2010). Incentives in obesity and health insurance. Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing, 46(4), 418–32. link When diabetes treatment becomes covered in general insurance plan, diabetics’ BMI significantly increases.
Lakshminarayanan, V. R., Chen, M. K., & Santos, L. R. (2011). The evolution of decision-making under risk: Framing effects in monkey risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 689–693. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.011 link 5 capuchin monkeys show the reflection effect (i.e., risk-seeking for losses, risk-averse for gains).
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644. link Consistent evidence that most people lie a bit if they can. I like the experiments and puzzle-matrix DV they designed.
Michel-Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S., & Kunreuther, H. (2012). Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 32(4), 644–58. link Great data, finds that people cancel (mandatory!) flood insurance pretty soon after they obtain it. Presumably because they don’t collect on their ‘investment’.
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(2), 293–307. link Nice studies, one of which I successfully replicated twice, that dig deep into the process underlying tempting fate effects.
Simonsohn, U., & Gino, F. (2013). Daily horizons: evidence of narrow bracketing in judgment from 10 years of m.B.a. Admissions interviews. Psychological science, 24(2), 219–24. link Great data, thorough analyses, finds that MBA candidates get lower scores if they are interviewing after other candidates have received good scores.
Ungemach, C., Stewart, N., & Reimers, S. (2011). How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psychological science, 22(2), 253–60. link Decision by Sampling theory is very intuitive; 10 seems high or low depending on whether you’re thinking about 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s, or 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s and this affects (risky) decisions. I was really disappointed when one of the studies failed to replicate.