In this week's PNAS, researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto tackle a topic that is bound to spark controversy. I'll let the title speak for itself: "Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior." The paper describes the results of seven studies—two field studies and five experimental tests—that sought to explore how socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with behavior that most of us would consider ethical.
Read the comments on this post
In the world of consumer electronics, it's common for companies to create a range of products that are all variations on a theme, containing slightly faster processors or a bit more memory. These products serve two important functions for their producers: they put the price of entry within reach of more consumers, and they induce those with a bit more cash to take steps up the product ladder and purchase a more expensive version. However, a study that has just been released by the Journal of Consumer Research suggests that the companies that take this tack have to be careful about how they go about things. Creating a product range by crippling an existing product can work against the company if word filters out.
The study was motivated in part because of a classic example that backfired. IBM once produced a pair of laser printers that differed solely in terms of their rate of output. The lower page-per-minute version, however, actually required that IBM install a specialized chip that throttled the normal printer's output—it took more work to produce, and cost more to make. That approach did not go over well with purchasers, and the authors are able to cite a history of similar products that resulted in a distinctive (and derogatory) vocabulary: "crippleware," "product sabotage," "anti-features," "defective by design," and "damaged goods."
Read the comments on this post
Anybody who follows basketball has seen it before: a player hits a momentum-changing three point shot. His team gets the ball back and tears down the court. Will the same player feel he (or she) has a hot hand and try another long-distance shot? Chances are he will. And chances are he'll miss. And chances are he'll do the same exact thing the next game.
That's the conclusion of a statistical analysis of a few hundred professional basketball players (291 from the NBA, 41 from the WNBA). The goal was not only to find out whether the frequently discussed "hot hand"—a shooter who's connecting on most of the shots he takes—exists, but also to find out whether players could identify when they're more likely to be hot, and adjust their behavior accordingly. The answer to both appears to be no, but there may be some other learning going on on the court.
Read the comments on this post