Measuring time preferences

We review research that measures time preferences—i.e., preferences over intertemporal tradeoffs. We distinguish between studies using financial flows, which we call “money earlier or later” (MEL) decisions and studies that use time-dated consumption/effort. Under different structural models, we show how to translate what MEL experiments directly measure (required rates of return for financial flows) into a discount function over utils. We summarize empirical regularities found in MEL studies and the predictive power of those studies. We explain why MEL choices are driven in part by some factors that are distinct from underlying time preferences.National Institutes of Health (NIA R01AG021650 and P01AG005842) and the Pershing Square Fund for Research in the Foundations of Human Behavior

The BFOQ Defense: Title VII’s Concession to Gender Discrimination

Should the BFOQ exception still exist? Because permitting discrimination under Title VII seems fundamentally contrary to the anti-discrimination purpose of the statute, this article questions whether the BFOQ defense is consistent with the aims of Title VII or whether, in actuality, the defense undermines the Act\u27s effectiveness by providing a loophole for employers to participate in the discriminatory practices Title VII seeks to forbid

The BFOQ Defense: Title VII’s Concession to Gender Discrimination

Should the BFOQ exception still exist? Because permitting discrimination under Title VII seems fundamentally contrary to the anti-discrimination purpose of the statute, this article questions whether the BFOQ defense is consistent with the aims of Title VII or whether, in actuality, the defense undermines the Act\u27s effectiveness by providing a loophole for employers to participate in the discriminatory practices Title VII seeks to forbid

A Memory-Based Approach to Multiple Document Comprehension

Multiple document (MD) comprehension is of growing interest in the Internet age, in which reading material is readily available from multiple sources. However, comprehension research has typically been dominated by studies investigating single documents (Bråten et al., 2019; McNamara & Magliano, 2009). This dissertation applies a memory-based approach traditionally used in research on single document comprehension to a MD context, with the goal of understanding the on-line processing and integration of information from multiple documents. Expository-style passages were created in which the first half contained information that was either consistent or inconsistent with a target sentence in the second half. A series of experiments measured reading times on the target sentences when the passage halves were presented as one single passage (Experiment I & IV) or as two separate passages, which were presented either consecutively (Experiment II & IV) or interleaved with an unrelated passage (Experiment III & IV). Reading time data revealed that, for all passage presentations, reading times were longer in the inconsistent condition compared to the consistent. These results indicate that information from earlier in the text or from previous passages was being reactivated and, when inconsistent, impacting on-line processing. In Experiment IV, a post-reading measure of memory for the inconsistencies revealed that participants’ memory was better when the inconsistency occurred across passages compared to when it occurred within a single passage

Moral cleansing as hypocrisy: When private acts of charity make you feel better than you deserve

What counts as hypocrisy? Current theorizing emphasizes that people see hypocrisy when an individual sends them “false signals” about his or her morality (Jordan, Sommers, Bloom, & Rand, 2017); indeed, the canonical hypocrite acts more virtuously in public than in private. An alternative theory posits that people see hypocrisy when an individual enjoys “undeserved moral benefits,” such as feeling more virtuous than his or her behavior merits, even when the individual has not sent false signals to others (Effron, O’Connor, Leroy, & Lucas, 2018). This theory predicts that acting less virtuously in public than in private can seem hypocritical by indicating that individuals have used good deeds to feel less guilty about their public sins than they should. Seven experiments (*N* = 3,468 representing 64 nationalities) supported this prediction. Participants read about a worker in a “sin industry” who secretly performed good deeds. When the individual’s public work (e.g., selling tobacco) was inconsistent with, versus unrelated to, the good deeds (e.g., anonymous donations to an anti-smoking cause vs. an anti-obesity cause), participants perceived him as more hypocritical, which in turn predicted less praise for his good deeds. Participants also inferred that the individual was using the inconsistent good deeds to cleanse his conscience for his public work, and such moral cleansing appeared hypocritical when it successfully alleviated his guilt. These results broaden and deepen understanding about how lay people conceptualize hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not require appearing more virtuous than you are; it suffices to feel more virtuous than you deserve