Better living through behavioral science

How the psychology of human behavior is helping tackle society’s biggest problems

By Wendy Plump

SUPPOSE someone approaches you on the street with the following proposition: You can receive either cash on the spot or a much larger contribution to your retirement account that likely will yield far more in the future. Do you choose the instant cash, or go with the retirement account?

The answer tells a lot about how people think, and about how public policymakers think people think.

Most people, it turns out, would choose the instant cash. Most policymakers, at least until somewhat recently, would have said that people would select the higher long-term payout of the retirement account.

Over the past two decades, policy planners from the Oval Office to the middle-school principal’s office have become aware that people often do not behave rationally, nor even in their own best interests. Understanding why people act as they do is the basis of the growing discipline of behavioral science, which is helping shape policies that tackle society’s biggest problems, from financial planning to public health.

“It is remarkable how little effort has been made to understand human behavior in policy circles,” said Eldar Shafir, the Class of 1987 Professor in Behavioral Science and Public Policy and a leader in this field of research. “Policy depends upon people doing things that the policymakers expect them to do. Yet, there has been almost no attempt to understand what people actually do, what they can do and what they want to do.”

Shafir has been working to change that along with colleagues at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Wilson School researchers are exploring the behavioral aspects of policies that combat poverty, school bullying, discrimination and many other issues.

The idea that psychology is essential for good public policy can be traced back 100 years to American economist John Maurice Clark at Columbia University, according to Shafir. “Clark pointed out that any time you design policy, you have to understand psychology,” Shafir said. “If you don’t, your policy design and implementation will often be flawed.”

This may sound like common sense, but in the past, psychology rarely had a place at the policy table, said Daniel Kahneman, Princeton’s Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, and professor of psychology and public affairs, emeritus, and a pioneer in the field. Instead, two disciplines — economics and law — were the wells from which policymakers drew almost exclusively.

Kahneman’s work is credited with improving economic analyses by including insights from psychology, especially on human judgment and decision making under uncertainty. The citation for his 2002 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences lauds him for “laying the foundation for a new field of research.”

Yet, Kahneman is uncomfortable taking credit for the field’s progress. Instead, he cites economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. Thaler and Harvard University Law School’s Cass Sunstein co-authored a 2008 book titled, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, that ushered applied behavioral science into the public consciousness.

The book brought attention to concepts such as how to present choices to people in ways that provide a gentle prod toward making good decisions. For example, automatically enrolling new employees in a retirement-savings program and allowing them to opt out, rather than encouraging employees to opt in to the program, dramatically increases the number of people who save for retirement.

These and other insights are backed up by extensive studies of how people actually behave and make decisions in given situations. A number of Princeton researchers are involved in research in behavioral science that has direct implications for public policy:

Stopping schoolyard conflict

Early in her career, Elizabeth Levy Paluck became interested in how social norms can influence people’s behavior. In post-genocide Rwanda, she found that a media campaign to help reduce prejudice and violence drew much of its success from its emphasis on changing people’s definition of acceptable and desired behavior.

“I study social norms — informal laws that are created and enforced by people,” said Paluck, professor of psychology and public affairs in the Wilson School. “How do people in a community figure out what these laws are, and how to follow them? One theory is that we look to the behavior of certain peers for cues as to what we should be doing.”

Paluck and colleagues wondered whether highly influential students could have an outsized impact on the social norms and behaviors of other students in a school setting. They designed an intervention called the Roots program that was aimed at reducing school bullying and conflict by convincing influential students to practice positive behaviors, with the goal of reaching wider networks of peers.

With colleagues at Rutgers and Yale universities, Paluck tested this approach in a study conducted at 56 middle schools throughout New Jersey. The researchers asked students to report who they socialized with on a regular basis — both in person and online — and then used the data to identify the most connected students.

The analysis identified students who were leaders among their specific peer groups, not just those who were the most popular overall. The researchers encouraged this small set of students to take a public stand against bullying at their schools. Would these “social referents” be able to spread social change?

Paluck and her collaborators found that middle schools that instituted Roots experienced a 30 percent reduction in reported “conflict incidents,” a finding the researchers published Jan. 4, 2016, in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The results suggest that behavior-change campaigns may be made more effective when they harness networks of influence to change societal norms.

Funding for the project came from the William T. Grant Foundation’s Scholars Program, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Princeton’s Educational Research Section, the Russell Sage Foundation, the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation.

Combating scarcity

For his research on poverty, Shafir studies the impact that deprivation has on an individual’s ability to focus intellectual energy on life tasks. His work touches on the age-old question regarding the causes and effects of poverty: Are people poor because they are not capable, or are they are not capable because they are poor?

Shafir and his team have found that poor people are often quite good at making short-term decisions about how to spend money. But the continual pressure to make ends meet can create an oppressive cognitive load on the individual, leaving little bandwidth for other tasks, including long-term planning.

This situation is compounded by the fact that small but unexpected expenses, such as a car-repair bill, can have much larger consequences for poor people than for middle-class individuals who have some slack in their monthly budget. Shafir and co-author Sendhil Mullainathan of Harvard explored research on poverty in their 2013 book, Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. They challenge the common societal perception that poverty is the result of personal failings and recast it as the outcome of a chronic lack of resources, be it money, transportation and housing, or even time.

Understanding the drivers of behavior among the poor can guide policies that help reduce the stresses and challenges associated with poverty, Shafir said. For example, if a fast-food company were to hand out employee work schedules further in advance — as opposed to the 48-hour timeframe it typically uses — then parents would be able to dedicate fewer cognitive resources to the constant management of childcare concerns, leaving them with more resources to devote to other aspects in their lives, including their job performance.

Counteracting stereotypes

Since she came to Princeton 16 years ago, Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of psychology and public affairs, has been researching issues of bias, discrimination and stereotypes.

One area of study involves exploring our perceptions of people as “warm and trustworthy” and “competent” at what they do. Middle-class individuals get high ratings on both counts, while homeless people and undocumented immigrants score low on both counts. Older people are seen as trustworthy but not competent, and rich people are seen as competent but not trustworthy.

In a study published earlier this year, Fiske and graduate student Jillian Swencionis reported that people in the workplace try to appear more competent by acting cold when dealing with their superiors, while superiors play up their warmth when dealing with subordinates. Supervisors and subordinates engage in these behaviors both to disprove stereotypes about themselves and to match what they think about the other person.

Recognizing these warmth-competence tradeoffs in interactions between employees of different ranks could help improve communications within organizations. The study was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in May 2016. Swencionis was funded in part by the National Science Foundation.

“People automatically categorize other people by race and gender and age,” Fiske said. “They do this without intention, so it’s not about evil motivation when people act on these associations. It’s kind of a default. As a result, people and organizations have to engage in extraordinary efforts to counteract that proclivity.”

No matter how groundbreaking the research, it is useless to public policy unless it is available to people in a position to implement it. So, Fiske started the journal Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences a few years ago. The journal is affiliated with the Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences, which does education and advocacy work. Fiske has been the federation’s president and serves on its executive committee.

Bringing policy into the 21st century

In September 2015, President Barack Obama signed an executive order directing federal agencies to draw on emerging research from the field of behavioral science when crafting policies. Obama described the directive as a way to “bring our government into the 21st century.”

Researchers at the Wilson School and in Princeton’s Department of Psychology are helping lead the application of behavioral science to policymaking through their work in government, at think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, and at schools and institutions. The growing demand for these skills led Shafir and several colleagues to cofound ideas42, a nonprofit company devoted to creating behaviorally informed solutions to societal problems.

The Wilson School also is home to a new center launched in spring 2015 and led by Shafir that is focused on applied behavioral science research. In the fall of 2016, the Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science & Public Policy launched its inaugural symposium. The center has more than 45 affiliated faculty members, including Alin Coman and Johannes Haushofer, both assistant professors of psychology and public affairs in the Wilson School. The center also has members from 11 departments across campus, including such diverse fields as geosciences, human values, philosophy and African American studies.

“It’s an exciting time,” Fiske said. “I’m a child of the ’60s and ’70s. So for me to be able to have an influence with data on policy is really a dream come true. We wanted to make the world a better place. It’s not so clear that we did, but there’s progress on several fronts.”

Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy

Authors: Helen V. Milner and Dustin Tingley
Publisher: Princeton University Press, 2015B_5_Milner_SailingTheWater'sEdge

When engaging with other countries, the U.S. government has a number of different policy instruments at its disposal, including foreign aid, international trade and the use of military force. But what determines which policies are chosen? Does the United States rely too much on the use of military power and coercion in its foreign policies? Sailing the Water’s Edge focuses on how domestic U.S. politics — in particular the interactions between the president, Congress, interest groups, bureaucratic institutions and the public — have influenced foreign policy choices since World War II and shows why presidents have more control over some policy instruments than others.

Helen Milner, Princeton’s B.C. Forbes Professor of Public Affairs and professor of politics and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School, and Dustin Tingley, professor of government at Harvard University, explore whether American foreign policy will remain guided by a grand strategy of liberal internationalism, what affects American foreign policy successes and failures, and the role of U.S. intelligence collection in shaping foreign policy. Sailing the Water’s Edge examines the importance of domestic political coalitions and institutions on the formation of American foreign policy.

All text and images courtesy of the publisher.

Download PDF

ROBERT KEOHANE receives James Madison Award in American political science

PHOTO BY SAMEER A. KHAN/FOTOBUDDY

PHOTO BY SAMEER A. KHAN/FOTOBUDDY

Robert Keohane, professor of public and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School, received the 2014 James Madison Award from the American Political Science Association (APSA).

The award, given once every three years, “recognizes an American political scientist who has made a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science.” The official citation describes Keohane as a “complete scholar” and cites his extensive writing in the field of international politics, his mentorship of generations of students, his dedication to the discipline, and his commitment to the association as the basis for his award.

APSA also cited Keohane’s past work, including After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984) and Designing Social Inquiry (1994), as having had an impact on scholarship in international affairs for many years.

“We are thrilled that Bob received the James Madison Award,” said Cecilia Rouse, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School and the Lawrence and Shirley Katzman and Lewis and Anna Ernst Professor in the Economics of Education. “His work has had and continues to have a profound impact on the profession. We celebrate his honor as one of the leaders in political science.”

–By Eric Wilkens

Download PDF

Wild birds: A trip to the market reveals species imperiled

Wild Birds

“Wild birds are being vacuumed out of the forests, gardens and fields of Indonesia, and we have to quickly figure out which species are in danger of extinction.” –David Wilcove, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School

THE SIGHT OF A SOUTHEAST ASIAN BIRD market rivals the din of one for being overwhelming. Thousands of wild-caught birds are packed into cages that hang from eaves and fill market stalls to the ceiling, lining the paths trod by prospective buyers like a living wall. Taken from fields and forests, these birds are prized for their song, their colors, their spiritual significance or their long-time association with status and wealth. For the people who come to these markets, the birds — young and old, endangered and common — have meaning and value.

But to scientists, conservationists and governments, the wild-pet trade is a destructive yet unmonitored and elusive force on wildlife populations.

Princeton University researchers went deep into the wild-bird markets and trapping operations on the Indonesian island of Sumatra to document the draining of species by the pet trade. They found there a new and interesting weapon in the struggle to gauge — and halt — the devastation of the wildlife trade on animal populations: the very markets where the animals are bought and sold.

Species that are disappearing as a result of the pet trade can be identified by changes in their market prices and trade volumes, a study led by the Princeton researchers found. The researchers studied open-air pet markets on Sumatra from 1987 to 2013 and found that bird species that increased in price but decreased in availability exhibited plummeting populations in the wild.

The researchers concluded in the journal Biological Conservation in July 2015 that a prolonged rise in price coupled with a slide in availability could indicate that a species is being wiped out by its popularity in the pet trade. Through regular pet-market monitoring, conservationists and governments could use this information as an early indicator that a particular species is in trouble, the researchers reported.

Lead author Bert Harris, who was a postdoctoral fellow in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs when the work was conducted, said that market monitoring can be done far more quickly and cheaply than field-based monitoring of wild populations.

birds

Birds such as the Oriental white-eye (top photo ) are packed into tight cages where they are at risk of disease. Many Asian and African countries host a startling number of species yet have lax-to-nonexistent monitoring and conservation programs. The Princeton researchers’ market-monitoring method can be done far more quickly and cheaply than field-based monitoring of wild populations. PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVID WILCOVE

One important function of the study is to highlight the pet trade as an emerging threat facing many birds and other wildlife, one that can act independently from other drivers of extinction such as habitat loss, said senior author David Wilcove, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs in the Wilson School.

He and Harris worked with co-authors Jonathan Green, who was a Princeton postdoctoral researcher in the Wilson School and is now at the University of Cambridge; Xingli Giam, who earned his Ph.D. at Princeton in 2014 and is now at the University of Washington; and researchers from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

“Wild birds are being vacuumed out of the forests, gardens and fields of Indonesia and we have to quickly figure out which species are in danger of extinction,” Wilcove said. “We’ve got to change how we tackle this problem.”

Carter Roberts, president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, said that the researchers’ use of wildlife-trade market data to identify endangered species is a “potentially breakthrough idea.”

“What I think makes this paper so exciting is that it suggests a two-pronged approach to addressing the threat to biodiversity posed by the wildlife trade: using market data to identify the species that are likely being severely overexploited, and then targeted research and conservation efforts at those species,” Roberts said.

The researchers found that 14 birds popular in Sumatran pet markets were identified by local experts as declining or severely declining — yet, only two are officially recognized as imperiled. In addition, only two species are restricted to old growth forests, meaning that deforestation alone could not explain the declines. The pet trade was clearly a culprit, too. Furthermore, the researchers found that six species that are not popular as pets exhibited population increases. The researchers confirmed their method by studying the cases of two birds that are critically endangered by the pet trade — the yellow-crested cockatoo and the Bali myna.

Existing studies have explored wildlife markets, but only documented a species’ market volume, or availability, Harris said. The Princeton-led study, which was supported by the High Meadows Foundation, is the first to consider price and market volume. Market availability alone can fluctuate for reasons unrelated to a species’ wild population, such as a decrease in popularity, he said.

During the course of the research, Harris visited bird markets to gather price and availability data. They are chaotic places where Westerners asking about prices are viewed with suspicion.

“The markets are the dirty part of conservation,” Harris said. “They’re noisy and smelly. And after someone who looks like me asks about prices two or three weeks in a row, sellers just stop responding.”

Wilcove was inspired to conduct the current research after a trip to Sumatra when he noticed a prevalence of wild-caught pet birds. Research has found that 22 percent of Indonesian households own birds.

One bird the researchers identified as declining in the wild, the white-rumped shama, which is prized for its song, can be raised in captivity. Yet people seem to prefer the wild individuals, Wilcove said. He and Harris want to explore how governments and conservation groups can convince people to keep captive-raised birds.

“It’s time for some new approaches,” Wilcove said.

–By Morgan Kelly

Download PDF

Nobel Prize in economics goes to Angus Deaton

Angus Deaton

Angus Deaton, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of International Affairs and a professor of economics and international affairs in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in economics for his contributions to understanding consumption at the individual level and in aggregate. PHOTO BY DENISE APPLEWHITE

 

 

 

 

 

Download PDF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measles may weaken immune system up to three years

Measles vaccination

Measles may weaken immune system up to three years. PHOTO BY SHUTTERSTOCK

THE MEASLES VIRUS can lead to serious disease in children by suppressing their immune systems for up to three years, according to a study published in the journal Science on May 8, 2015. The study provides evidence that measles may throw the body into a much longer-term state of “immune amnesia,” where essential memory cells that protect the body against infectious diseases are partially wiped out. This vulnerability was previously thought to last a month or two.

“We already knew that measles attacks immune memory, and that it was immunosuppressive for a short amount of time. But this paper suggests that immune suppression lasts much longer than previously suspected,” said C. Jessica Metcalf, co-author and assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs, who is affiliated with Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The research findings suggest that — apart from the major direct benefits — measles vaccination may also provide indirect immunological protection against other infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Research and Policy for Infectious Disease Dynamics (RAPIDD) Program of the National Institutes of Health’s Fogarty International Center.

–By B. Rose Huber

Download PDF

Princeton-Fung Global Forum focuses on global health

IN NOVEMBER, the annual Princeton-Fung Global Forum brought health experts together in Dublin to address the emergence of new diseases and challenges in an increasingly connected world. Case studies of “modern plagues,” including the Ebola crisis, framed the conversation among speakers, panelists and attendees from academia, government and nongovernmental sectors, the media, and the public. Among the conclusions: confronting the emergence of new diseases requires a multidisciplinary approach involving not only public health and medical knowledge but also an understanding of a disease’s economic, environmental, political and historical roots.

The Princeton-Fung Global Forum is a series of meetings that Princeton hosts with the help of a generous gift from 1970 alumnus William Fung.

–By Elisabeth Donahue

Download PDF

Janet Currie investigates the building blocks of children’s success

Janet Currie

Janet Currie PHOTO BY DENISE APPLEWHITE

By Michael Hotchkiss

TRAINED AS A LABOR ECONOMIST, Janet Currie earned her doctorate at Princeton by studying strikes and arbitration. But as she began her academic career in the late 1980s, she shifted her focus to examining the building blocks of success for children, as well as the stumbling blocks that can get in their way.

While the topics are very different, Currie said both benefit from research by economists. “I realized that economics is really more of a method, or a way of thinking, than a set of topics, and I have implemented that by working on issues that can benefit from the tools of economics research,” she said.

Over the nearly three decades since, Currie has used the methods of an economist, her analytical skills and an openness to new ideas to offer important insights into the health and well-being of children. In the terms of economics, she studies the factors that affect children’s human capital — the intangible assets such as health, skills and knowledge that play a role in life outcomes.

Today the Henry Putnam Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton and chair of the Department of Economics, Currie has tackled research on a wide range of topics, including socioeconomic differences in child health, environmental threats to children’s health and the long-term effects of poor health in early childhood.

Beyond the individual findings, Currie said, are broader lessons.

“One would be that very early life is important,” she said. “That is now pretty well accepted and has had an impact on policy, but at the time I was starting to do this research that wasn’t so widely appreciated. Another kind of general conclusion is that pollution at lower levels than Environmental Protection Agency thresholds for concern has measureable and detectable health effects.”

Currie joined the Princeton faculty in 2011 from Columbia University. Previously, she was on the faculty at the University of California-Los Angeles and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

At Princeton, Currie is director of the Center for Health and Wellbeing, which fosters research and teaching on aspects of health and well-being in developed and developing countries. She is also a senior editor of the Future of Children, a publica- tion that translates social science research about children and youth into information that is useful to policymakers, practitioners and other nonacademic audiences.

Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist who works with Currie on projects including the Future of Children and shares many of her research interests, said Currie is “one of the most outstanding economists in the country who is doing work on child health.” And, McLanahan added, Currie’s impact goes beyond her research.

“She’s just very willing to give her time and be generous,” said McLanahan, the William S. Tod Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs. “She’s a straight shooter. She tells you what she thinks. She does more than her share, and she wants it to be done right. She’s just a great positive force.”

An economist’s approach

Currie, who earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics from the University of Toronto before coming to Princeton for her doctoral studies, said several aspects of economics make it useful in studying children and their outcomes.

Among them: a tradition of using models to frame issues, an emphasis on measurement and a focus on establishing causal relationships.

Often, she has applied these principles in natural experiments, which are observational studies where conditions outside a researcher’s control randomly assign some people to an experimental condition and others to a control condition.

For example, interest in the impact of pollution on infant health led Currie and Reed Walker, then a graduate student at Columbia and now an assistant professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, to examine the effect of introducing electronic toll collection on the health of children born to mothers who lived near toll plazas. They found that the switch to electronic toll collection, which greatly reduced traffic congestion and vehicle emissions near toll plazas, was associated with a decline in premature and low-birth-weight babies born to those mothers.

That research depended on identifying the roll-out of electronic toll collection as a potential natural experiment, gathering pollution data for the area of toll plazas, and mining birth records for the necessary information about the residences of mothers and birth outcomes.

In another natural experiment, Currie and Maya Rossin-Slater of Columbia used birth records from Texas and meteorological information to identify children born in the state between 1996 and 2008 whose mothers were in the path of a major tropical storm or hurricane during pregnancy. They found that expectant mothers who dealt with the strain of a hurricane or major tropical storm passing nearby during their pregnancy had children who were at elevated risk for abnormal health conditions at birth.

Keeping an open mind

Hannes Schwandt, who has worked closely with Currie during three years as a postdoctoral research associate at the Center for Health and Wellbeing, said another important aspect of Currie and her work is her openness to new ideas.

“On the one hand, she has this great detailed expertise, given all the work she has done,” Schwandt said. “At the same time, she’s always open to new questions. I think combining her expertise with this view for broad, new directions is what makes her so special.”

Take a paper he and Currie published in 2014 on the effect of recessions on fertility. The idea began, Schwandt said, with a discussion they had about evidence that babies born during recessions are generally healthier than those born in better times.

“Janet said we need to step back and look at fertility — who is giving birth — instead of focusing on the health of babies,” Schwandt said. “She immediately made the connection that in the news there is always a discussion that there is decline in fertility during recessions. But no one really knew the long-term effect.”

After examining 140 million births over 40 years, Currie and Schwandt found that recessions are linked to an increase in the number of women who remain childless at age 40.

What’s ahead

Currie is continuing to pursue ways to address issues relating to children and their development.

One project is looking for new evidence of the impact of lead exposure on children and their educational outcomes in Rhode Island. By matching birth records, lead-test results and school records, Currie is examining the impact of a program to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

“One of the really interesting things about this research, I think, is that the program to reduce lead exposure seems to have been pretty effective,” Currie said.

Because African American children were more likely to live in areas with high lead levels, the program brought their lead levels down more quickly than those of white children. At the same time, Currie said, the gap in standardized test scores between the groups narrowed.

The research could offer new clues about the role lead exposure plays in the lower test scores typically recorded by students who live in inner-city areas where lead exposure is more common, Currie said.

Another work in progress takes advantage of the implementation of congestion pricing in Stockholm, which levies a tax on most vehicles entering and exiting the city’s center, to measure the impact of traffic — and the resulting pollution — on child health. A third is examining state-by-state differences in smoking patterns among pregnant women and the relationship between smoking among pregnant women and low-birth-weight births.

A topic she would like to address in future work: mental health.

“I’m interested in that for a lot of different reasons,” she said. “If you look at the U.S. economy, mental health is the leading cause of lost work. That’s because it tends to strike people who are of working age, whereas a lot of other health conditions are more for older people. It’s important from an economic point of view. It also seems to be very related to a lot of learning issues.”

Over the past 20 years, Currie said, a raft of new psychiatric medications has come on the market, many of which are not well understood, and prices are rising.

“It seems like there’s this huge black box of things that are happening and no one is really studying, and there’s not very good data on it,” she said. “That’s something I’ve been struggling with for a while, how to get some purchase on that problem.”

Valued as a mentor

Currie is also widely recognized for her work with young researchers and her advocacy for them.

“In addition to all the work she does as a top economist, being willing to work with students is a great benefit,” McLanahan said. “Having someone do so well and be so generous is important, especially for the next generation of female economists.”

In spring 2015, Currie received a Graduate Mentoring Award from the McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning. Graduate students described Currie as insightful and readily available to help aspiring researchers develop their ideas and present them publicly.

Molly Schnell, a Ph.D. candidate in economics, said Currie is so generous with her time “that she seems to defy the principle of scarcity.”

In particular, she pointed to Currie’s willingness to co-author papers with graduate students.

“Learning to develop a paper by working through the process with an established researcher is a formative experience, and Janet makes sure that her students have this opportunity,” Schnell said.

Schwandt said Currie has helped him grow more confident in tackling new topics.

“One thing I’ve learned from her is not to worry too much whether other people think something is economics or not,” he said. “She always says: ‘First, who defines what economics is? And second, why do we really care so long as it is a really important question and we can help answer it?’”

Professor Janet Currie’s research uses the tools of economics research to study issues in children’s health. Among her findings:

E-Z Pass Research

 

Expectant mothers

 

 

Foreclosure research

 

 

 

Fertility research

 

 

 

 

Download PDF

DANIEL KAHNEMAN Receives Presidential Medal of Freedom

Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman (Photo by Larry Levanti)

Daniel Kahneman, the Eugene Higgins Professor of psychology, emeritus, and a Nobel laureate in economics, is one of 16 people who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest civilian honor in the United States — in 2013 from President Barack Obama.

The citation for Kahneman issued by the White House reads: “Daniel Kahneman is a pioneering scholar of psychology. After escaping Nazi occupation in World War II, Dr. Kahneman immigrated to Israel, where he served in the Israel Defense Forces and trained as a psychologist. Alongside Amos Tversky, he applied cognitive psychology to economic analysis, laying the foundation for a new field of research and earning the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002.”

Deborah Prentice, dean of the faculty and former chair of the psychology department, said she was delighted that Kahneman received this honor. “Danny was also one of the first to see the enormous potential for behavioral-science research to improve public policy,” Prentice said. “Here at Princeton, he created and co-taught the first course on behavioral policy and championed the appointment of many talented behavioral scientists to faculty positions in the Woodrow Wilson School. Behavioral approaches are now gaining in prominence in policy schools, think-tanks and government agencies, thanks in large part to Danny.”

–By the Office of Communications

Study casts doubt on fairness of U.S. democracy

Affluence and Influence

Affluence and Influence (Princeton
University Press, 2013)

AFFLUENT INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESS CORPORATIONS have vastly more influence on federal government policy than average citizens, according to research by Princeton University and Northwestern University.

The researchers used a data set comprised of 1,779 policy issues over a 30-year period to estimate how much influence affluent citizens, organized interest groups and ordinary citizens each have on policy outcomes. They found that affluent citizens, those at the 90th-income percentile, have the most influence, followed by organized interest groups. However, the preferences of average citizens have no discernable, independent effect on policymaking at all, the researchers found.

“If democracy means that all citizens should have a say in shaping government policy, our findings cast doubt upon just how democratic U.S. policymaking actually is,” said Martin Gilens, a professor of politics at Princeton and a member of the executive committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He conducted the study, for the fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, with co-author Benjamin Page, the Gordon Scott Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University.

Gilens is the author of the 2013 prize-winning book Affluence and Influence (Princeton University Press).

–By B. Rose Huber