#SPSP2022 In collaboration with @TEDTalks "mystery experiment", @DunnHappyLab studied the effects of giving $10,000 to 200 people to spend however they wanted (plus 100 in no-$ control condition). Really striking findings!! 1/n
Money does buy happiness (even 3 months after the money has been spent)! #SPSP2022 2/n
Red bars = how much life satisfaction $2 mil would have provided a millionaire couple; Blue bars = life satisfaction gains from redistributing that to 200 people ($10,000 each). Love this visualization/effect size quantification!! #SPSP2022 3/n
Wowwwwwww. Super-sized version of the dictator game: People spent an average of $6,431 of their $10,000 endowment on others!!!!! People are generous, even when the stakes are high. (Even when "others" are restricted to strangers/causes, still around $3,000). #SPSP2022 4/n
Participants who were in the public condition (instructed to Tweet about their experience, including gathering opinions on how the $ should be spent) spent similar amounts as those in the private conditions. So reputation concerns didn't seem to increase generosity. #SPSP2022 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thought I'd share some miscellaneous thoughts/lessons from two rounds on the job market: 🧵 1/n
Be aware that out-of-pocket costs can add up! Some universities made me book my own flights (including an international flight!), & I had to wait weeks for reimbursement. In one case, I also ended up staying a few extra nights in b/t interviews (instead of flying home first). 2/n
The lesson is that universities should book flights if at all possible to make it easier on job candidates, and advisors can also support their students (e.g., by offering to pay for extra nights of accommodation out of their research budget). 3/n
Great thread. The dominance of Likert-type outcome measures means that most psychologists don't actually know what a non-arbitrary measure looks like. So here's a thread on how we can make our measures less arbitrary: 1/n
Blanton & Jaccard's (2006) paper revolutionised my thinking about effect sizes and meaningful metrics in psychology. I highly recommend it. psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-00… 2/n
Their key argument is that a metric is arbitrary when it provides no information about where a person is located on the true underlying continuum, or what a 1-unit change means. 3/n
1) We loved the goal of mathematically modelling different shapes of blame/praise judgments, and identifying neutral points. I saw this as very much in line w/ calls to reduce the arbitrariness of measures and define the continua of constructs, e.g.: psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-00… 2/n