Exploration in Behavioral Science

Hanne  Collins; A.V.  Whillans; Leslie  John

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2020

Exploration in Behavioral Science

by Hanne Collins, A.V. Whillans and Leslie John

Abstract

In the past decade, behavioral science has undergone beneficial shifts towards greater transparency and more rigorous research. However, we wondered whether this heightened focus on confirmation might make researchers feel inhibited towards doing research, and reduce the propensity to explore. Study 1 (N=404), a descriptive survey, indicated that relative to confirmatory research, researchers found exploratory research more enjoyable, motivating, and interesting; and less anxiety-inducing, frustrating, boring, and scientific. It also introduced a scale to measure research inhibition; higher scores were linked to running fewer studies and were particularly common among women, untenured professors, and receiving one’s PhD after 2011—when reforms began. Study 2 (N=463), a pre-registered experiment, indicated that a confirmatory mindset made researchers less likely to find an interesting (non-hypothesized) interaction. A reminder to explore did not mitigate this effect. These studies suggest that work is needed to ensure that rigorous scientific reforms and exploration can coexist.

Keywords: open science; pre-registration; Exploration; career satisfaction; Science; Research; Personal Development and Career; Satisfaction; Diversity;

Read Now

Citation:

Collins, Hanne, A.V. Whillans, and Leslie John. "Exploration in Behavioral Science." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-090, February 2020.

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

Exploration in Behavioral Science

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors