Group items tagged

Discusses a recent paper and press-release (a short summary circulated to the media by the people involved. In research, this is generally a summary of the paper often published by the university or organisation that has conducted the research). Do you think starting to eat nuts is likely to decrease your risk of heart disease? What other behaviours or characteristics do you think nut-eating might be associated with? Would any of them also be related to health factors?

Where else have you seen risk claims like "x causes 50% increase in health-problem y"? Do you tend to trust these claims? Do you understand what they mean? Would they change your behaviour? "Interpreting health (or any other) risk estimates reported in the media is not straightforward. Even health professionals can get tripped up trying to make sense of these statistics, so it is no wonder the public can easily be confused or misled. Often there is tendency to overreact to risk estimates, so it's worth unpacking what these really mean."

It's not just disadvantaged and vulnerable groups that struggle with financial decision-making. People who are highly educated in finance also make poor decisions - for instance, by focusing too much on growing their assets and ignoring risks. But studies show that when regulation is effective and the financial system can be trusted, even consumers with limited financial knowledge and information-processing capabilities have the potential to deal with complex financial decisions. For example, when considering mortgage protection insurance, applicants stand to benefit from knowing the actual risk of events like serious illness or injury that can affect their ability to meet monthly loan repayments.

Scientists have typically justified excluding female animals from experiments - even when studying conditions that are more likely to affect women - on the basis that fluctuating hormones would render the results uninterpretable. However, according to Rebecca Shansky, a neuroscientist at Northeastern University, in Boston, it is entirely unjustified by scientific evidence, which shows that, if anything, the hormones and behaviour of male rodents are less stable than those of females. Shansky is calling for stricter requirements to include animals of both sexes in research, saying the failure to do so has led to the development of drugs that work less well in women.

Great podcast from our own 2ser & UTS Business School! "latest episode of #ThinkBusinessFutures @2ser, with Dr Geetanjali Saluja @UTSMarketing @UTS_Business, discussing her research into moral decision making, and Adam Ferrier, author of 'The Advertising Effect: How to Change Behaviour'" Discusses some of the framing, cognitive bias, and their impact on decision making that we talked about in class

Have you ever you looked for a product online and then been recommended the exact thing you need to complement it? Or have you been thinking about a particular purchase, only to receive an email with that product on sale? All of this may give you a slightly spooky feeling, but what you're really experiencing is the result of complex algorithms used to predict, and in some cases, even influence your behaviour.

Interesting discussion of evidence on what does, and does not, work in tackling gender bias in recruitment and management processes. Evidence shows that skills-based assessment tasks (where candidates are given tests that replicate the work they'll actually do on the job) and structured interviews (where all candidates are given the same questions in the same order) have a positive impact on diverse recruitment. Unstructured interviews are more likely to allow unfair bias to creep in. Making promotion and pay processes more transparent can reduce pay inequality: when decisions are reviewed by others, managers realise they need to be objective and evidence-based. Evidence also shows women ask for less money than men. To encourage them to negotiate more, employers should make the possible salary range for roles clear. Studies indicate that women are put off negotiating when they're not sure what a reasonable offer is. "A lot of employers are genuinely really keen to reduce the gender pay gap, and also want to show they're making a change. But they're starved for information about what is likely to work,"

There's one particularly cunning type of pricing strategy that marketers use to get you to switch your choice from one option to a more expensive or profitable one. It's called the decoy effect. Imagine you are shopping for a Nutribullet blender. You see two options. The cheaper one, at $89, promotes 900 watts of power and a five-piece accessory kit. The more expensive one, at $149, is 1,200 watts and has 12 accessories. Which one you choose will depend on some assessment of their relative value for money. It's not immediately apparent, though, that the more expensive option is better value. It's 50% more powerful but costs almost 80% more. It does have more than twice as many plastic accessories, but what are they worth? Now consider the two in light of a third option. This one, for $125, offers 1,000 watts and nine accessories. It enables you to make what feels like a more considered comparison. For $36 more than the cheaper option, you get four more accessories and an extra 100 watts of power. But if you spend just $24 extra, you get a further three accessories and 200 watts more power. Bargain! You have just experienced the decoy effect.

What do you take from this hypothetical headline: "Reading the Research Digest blog is associated with higher intelligence"? How about this one: "Reading this blog might increase your intelligence"? According to science writing guides like HealthNewsReview.org, taking the first correlational finding from a peer-reviewed article and reporting it for the public using the second wording, implying causation, is a sin of exaggeration, making a relationship appear more causal than the evidence suggests.