About NoBec Talks

The NoBeC (Norms and Behavioral Change) Talks showcase interdisciplinary early career and senior researchers working on norms and behavioral change around the world. We also aim to give PhD students and Post-Docs exposure by showing short pre-recorded 5 min videos about their research before each of our main talks.
20201212 IMG 8458 2

Please note: Professor Marie Claire Villevall’s talk, which was originally planned for the 11th March, will be scheduled soon for another date due to agenda conflicts.

Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences

Eugen Dimant | Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania (see profile here)
Thursday 11th March 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)

Political polarization has ruptured the fabric of U.S. society. The focus of this paper is to examine various layers of (non-)strategic decision-making that are plausibly affected by existing polarization. Through the lens of one’s feelings of hate and love for Donald J. Trump, I document the behavioral-, belief-, and norm-based mechanisms through which perceptions of interpersonal closeness, altruism, and cooperativeness are affected, both within and between political factions. Using 5 pre-registered studies comprising 13 behavioral experiments and a diverse set of about 8,000 participants, I find strong heterogeneous effects: ingroup-love occurs in the perceptional domain (how close one feels towards others), whereas outgroup-hate occurs in the behavioral domain (how one helps/harms/cooperates with others). The rich setting also allows me to examine the mechanisms: the observed intergroup conflict can be attributed to one’s grim expectations about the cooperativeness of the opposing faction, rather than one’s actual unwillingness to cooperate. A final set of experiments reveals that two popular behavioral interventions (defaults and norm-nudging) alone are insufficient to eradicate the detrimental behavioral impact of polarization.

(Access the full paper here)

katy milkman home

A Mega-Study Approach to Applied Behavioral Science

Katy Milkman | The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (see profile here)
Thursday 1st April 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)

Behavioral science can only inform policy insofar as its insights are comparable and cumulative. Typically, however, ideas are tested across different samples on different outcomes over different time intervals. We suggest a new approach: The “mega-study” is a massive field experiment in which the effects of many different interventions are compared in the same population on the same objectively measured outcome for the same duration. Our demonstration project targeted physical exercise among 61,293 members of a national fitness chain. Thirty scientists designed 54 different online experiences, 45% of which significantly boosted weekly gym visits (by 9 to 27%). Forecasts by impartial judges failed to predict which conditions would be most effective, underscoring the utility of mega-studies to improve the evidentiary value of behavioral science.

simon gaechter

The Behavioral Logic of Rule Following and Social Norm Compliance

Simon Gächter | Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham (see profile here)
Thursday 22nd April 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)

From Extreme to Mainstream: The Erosion of Social Norms

Stefano Fiorin | Department of Economics, Bocconi University (see profile here)
Thursday 13th May 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)
unnamed 1

Disguising Prejudice: Popular Rationales as Excuses for Intolerant Expression

Chris Roth | Department of Economics, University of Warwick (see profile here)
Thursday 3rd June 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)
John Beshears Profile

Nudging: Progress to Date and Future Directions

John Beshears | Harvard Business School, Harvard University (see profile here)
Thursday 24th June 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)

Do Disasters Affect Adherence to Social Norms?

Max Winkler | Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University (see profile here)
Thursday 15th July 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)
jpg1475cchdelory 20140

Three layers of the regulation of behaviour in large scale societies and how they can be leveraged for behavioural change

Saadi Lahlou | Paris Institute for Advanced Study – Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics (see profile here)
Thursday 5th August 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)
ben cislaghi

Using social norms theory to investigate obstacles to achieving family planning goals

Ben Cislaghi | Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (see profile here)
Thursday 26th August 2021 (Philadelphia @ 1:00 PM | Los Angeles @ 10:00 AM | London @ 6:00 PM | Delhi @ 11:30 pm)

In Science we (should) trust: expectations and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cristina Bicchieri | Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics,  University of Pennsylvania (see profile here)
Thursday 4th February 2021

The magnitude and nature of the COVID-19 pandemic prevents public health policies from relying on coercive enforcement. Practicing social distancing, wearing masks and staying at home are voluntary and conditional on the behavior of others. We present the results of a large-scale survey experiment in nine countries with representative samples of the population. We find that both empirical expectations (what others do) and normative expectations (what others approve of) play a significant role in compliance, beyond the effect of any other individual or group characteristic. In our survey experiment, when empirical and normative expectations of individuals are high, compliance goes up by 55% (relative to the low expectations condition). Similar results are obtained when we look at self-reported compliance among those with high expectations. Our results are driven by an asymmetric interaction with individuals’ trust in government and science. Holding both expectations high, the effect of trusting science is substantial and significant in our vignette experiment (22% increase in compliance), and even larger in self-reported compliance (76% and 127% increase before and after the lockdown). By contrast, trusting the government only generates modest effects. At the macro level, the country-level trust in science, and not in government, becomes a strong predictor of compliance.

Access the paper (co-authored with Enrique Fatas, Abraham Aldama, Andres Casas, Ishwari Deshpande, Mariagiulia Lauro, Cristina Parilli, Max Spohn, Paula Pereira and Ruiling Wen) here:https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-106840/v1

Gang Rule

Chris Blattman | Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts, University of Chicago
Thursday 18th February 2021

Gangs govern millions worldwide. Why do they rule, and how do they react to states? Many argue that criminal rule provides protection when states do not, and thus increasing state services could crowd gangs out. To investigate, we began by interviewing leaders from 30 criminal groups in Medellín. They told us that this conventional view overlooks gangs’ indirect incentives to rule: governing keeps police out and fosters civilian loyalty, protecting other illegal businesses. We present a model of duopolistic competition with returns to loyalty and show under what conditions state expansion causes gangs to increase or decrease governing. We run the first gang-level field experiment, intensifying city governance in select neighborhoods for two years, and see no decrease in gang rule. We also examine a 30-year quasi-experiment. New borders in Medellín created local discontinuities in access to government services. Gangs responded to greater state rule by governing more. We propose alternatives for countering criminal governance.

Early Career Researchers (including PhD Students and Post-Docs), we want to hear from you!
Send us your info and a 5-minute video explaining your research related (broadly) to social norms and behavioral change and we’ll broadcast it to an international audience of researchers at the beginning of one of our NoBeC Talks!

Social Norms Explain the Effects of Incentives on Prosocial Behavior

Caroline Graf | PhD student, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands)
4th February 2021

Incentives have surprisingly inconsistent effects when it comes to encouraging people to behave prosocially. That is, the effects of incentives vary across incentive types, private versus public settings and across countries. Previous theoretical accounts have explained these phenomena by postulating an additive effect of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and reputational motivation. We build on these theories, but introduce a key theoretical modification: Reputational motivation depends on social norms. We empirically test our model on the real-world prosocial behavior of blood donation using a comparative dataset comprising representative samples from 28 European countries. We find that social norms can account for the varying effects of financial and time incentives on donation behavior across countries. That is, incentives were associated with higher levels of prosociality when social norms regarding the incentive were more positive. The results indicate that social norms regarding incentives play an important role in determining the effect of incentives on prosocial behavior.

Information about Inequality and Support for Redistribution

Abraham Aldama | Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Pennsylvania (US)
18th February 2021

Since the 1960s, income inequality has increased in the US. However, taxation on the rich has decreased in the same period. The literature has provided several explanations for why this might be the case. We focus on people’s perception of the extent of inequality. Using a large scale online experiment, we find that providing information about inequality and incentives to overcome cognitive and ideiological biases changes people’s perceptions about the extent of inequality in the US. However, this does not translate into changes in the demand for redistribution through either public or private means. We further find that the lack of change in preferences is not driven by differential responses across across a number of subgroups.