Russell Sage Foundation Proposal
Project Title: Deliberative Lives of the Poor: Understanding Real-time Decision-Making
Under Financial Scarcity
Response to Reviewers
•
Two reviewers expressed concerns with the sample size. To address this while
maintaining a balanced budget, we’ve increased the sample size of the first
phase (quantitative) by 33 percent while decreasing the sample size of the last
phase (qualitative) by 20 percent.
•
We maintain a small sample in the final phase. This phase consists of rigorous
qualitative analyses. We are confident the proposed sample sizes will provide the
level of insight necessary for this project and is consistent with other projects that
use similar methods (see Sandelowski, 1995).
•
Keeping in mind the possible attrition, we intend on offering a completion bonus
in the form of a lottery. Participants who are selected and who complete all four
phases will be entered into a public lottery to earn an extra $1000.
•
One of the reviewers suggested including standard psychological tests, such as
those used in Mani, et al., 2013, and behavioral economic measures. We
appreciated this suggestion and have extended our proposal to include a fourth
component that is to take place in our lab (see Phase 2 below).
•
The reviewers expressed concern that there was no clear hypothesis and that
our design may lead to multiple hypotheses testing and data mining. We have
1
broken down our hypotheses into smaller, simpler questions to address this. We
maintain, however, that this project is designed to be exploratory, collecting data
in different ways to complement the existing literature and guide future studies.
•
In regards to the multiple hypothesis testing we remind reviewers of the “radically
open” approach this project takes on, where from start to finish our information
and data will be available to the public.
•
One of the reviewers noted our budget was missing payments to participants.
This has now been included and is reflected in the budget.
•
One of the reviewers noted a potential selection bias due to timing of phone calls
in the repeated qualitative phone surveys. To address this, we will be soliciting
up to 5 available time blocks for each participant, one of these blocks will be
randomly selected for each day a call is to be scheduled. If the participant misses
the call the next time block will be used. If a participant misses a day an
additional day will be added. Refusals to participate on a given day will be treated
as missing data.
Statement of Significance
Deliberative Lives of the Poor is an exploratory, mixed methods research initiative that
seeks to advance our understanding of decision-making processes in the context of
financial scarcity. Over the past two decades, the study of poverty and inequality has
been revolutionized by randomized controlled trials, which allow researchers to identify
which programs work and which do not. This method has been highly successful in
2
identifying effective interventions: for instance, an after-school program for at-risk youth
reduced arrests for violent crime (Heller, Pollack, Ander, & Ludwig, 2013); commitment
savings devices helped individuals increase their savings rates (Benartzi & Thaler,
2007). Importantly, many of the most cost-effective programs target behavioral
mechanisms: for instance, commitment savings devices capitalize on the common
behavioral irregularity known as “present bias” and help people overcome present bias
by offering options to commit ex ante to desirable (from their point of view) decisions.
The fact that poverty alleviation programs based on behavioral mechanisms are highly
successful suggests that poverty itself may affect cognition and decision-making.
Indeed, it has recently been shown that poverty (and, more generally, “scarcity”) can
lead to short-sighted and suboptimal behaviors (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014; Shah,
Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2012) and even impair executive control and fluid intelligence
(Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, & Zhao, 2013). Others have hypothesized that poverty
affects not only cognitive capacities but also one’s thoughts and beliefs: for instance,
Dalton, Ghosal, & Mani (2014) argue that poverty induces a behavioral bias in setting
aspirations, a so-called ‘aspirations failure’, which in turn reduces effort and thus
perpetuates poverty. Indeed, inspiring poor individuals to increase their agency has
been shown to improve both well-being and economic outcomes (Bernard, Dercon,
Orkin, & Taffesse, 2014; Ghosal, Jana, Mani, Mitra, & Roy, 2013).
Thus, previous research suggests that behavioral interventions are highly effective at
alleviating poverty (Ashraf, Karlan, & Yin, 2006; Datta & Mullainathan, 2014), possibly
3
because poverty itself has particular behavioral and cognitive characteristics that these
interventions can target. However, previous research has not asked systematically
whether and how the patterns of thoughts and behaviors of people living in poverty
differ systematically from that of people living in affluence. Instead, researchers have
used intuition and insights from rich populations (e.g. college students) to make
predictions about the behavioral patterns of the poor. This approach potentially misses
important behavioral and cognitive regularities that are characteristic of living in poverty.
To put it bluntly, a large and prominent field of research now tries to understand how the
poor think and about what, but nobody has simply asked them. The present study
therefore asks in an open-ended fashion: What do poor people think about at a given
moment? What decisions do they make on a daily basis? How do they make these
decisions? Together, this project will shed new light on the behavioral and cognitive
features of poverty and provide a rich database, which researchers can use to generate
new hypotheses about the origins and consequences of poverty and for developing new
poverty alleviation interventions.
The present project proposes to fill the gap between what researchers believe the poor
think and what they actually think by asking individuals in a low-income neighborhood in
the United States what they think about and how they make decisions on a daily basis.
The project mirrors and naturally builds off of the seminal research project Portfolios of
the Poor (Collins, 2011), both in its methodology and the types of insights it provides. In
2010, Portfolios transformed how the academic and policy community thought about the
financial lives of the poor by making two contributions: first, to provide detailed diaries
4
about the financial lives of the poor; second, to provide this data at high temporal
frequency, allowing researchers to track the cash flow of low-income households over
time (Collins, 2011). This project builds on the methodology by including multiple data
collection methods, including a component conducted in the lab.
The goal of the “Deliberative Lives” project is to make a similar contribution for
thoughts and decisions: first, to provide a detailed account of what poor people think
about and decide on a daily basis; second, to provide this data at high temporal
resolution; and third, to characterize the external and internal constraints that shape
their thoughts and decisions. Thus, the Deliberative Lives project will do for broader
cognition and decision-making what Portfolios of the Poor did for financial behaviors.
Four data collection activities will be undertaken to provide a full picture of the
deliberative lives of the poor:
1. A one-time quantitative survey;
2. A one-time lab session;
3. A repeated, qualitative phone-call survey
4. Weekly real-time diaries collected by phone.
In the following sections we describe each of these phases in detail.
Phase 1: Quantitative one-time survey
Data collected
5
In this phase, we will compare the decisions, thoughts, and emotions of people facing
financial scarcity to those of people living in relative wealth. To this end, a quantitative
survey will be conducted with 300 low-income individuals, 150 middle-income, and 150
middle- to high-income individuals living in Trenton, NJ. The survey asks individuals
about (1) the parameters of the decisions they make, including the domain, their choice
sets, the time horizon, and whom the decisions affect; (2) the process of making the
decision, including their assessment of priorities and tradeoffs, the influence of religion
and other worldviews, resources available to achieve desired outcomes, and the social
supports they draw upon in making decisions; and (3) their evaluation of the decisionmaking process and its outcome, including associated emotions and assessments of
difficulty and satisfaction. This survey will provide a comprehensive picture of the
decision-making processes of poor compared to wealthier individuals.
Specifically, the survey has the following components. First, it asks respondents to list
the most important decision made in the past year, the most important decision made in
the past month, and a decision in the past month the respondent is unhappy with.
Second, for each of these decisions, it collects elicit information about the exact nature
of the decision; whether it primarily affected the respondent or another person; how
usual decisions of this type are for the respondent; how complex the sequence of steps
was the respondent had to complete to implement the decision; how long the
respondent considered the decision; whom the respondent consulted; which factors the
respondent considered (e.g. financial security, friends’/relatives’ opinion, personal
health and safety, long-term goals, intuition); how many alternatives the respondent
6
typically considers in such decision-making situations; whether the respondent had to
make sacrifices; whether the respondent regrets the decision; how difficult it was to
make and how much confidence the respondent has that it was the right decision; and
which emotions the respondent experienced while making the decision.
The respondents for this phase will be low-income, middle-income, and high-income
individuals from Trenton, NJ. All respondents are members of the Busara Center for
Behavioral Economics’ (Busara) subject pool. Busara, founded in Nairobi, Kenya in
2012, is a leading research institution that enables researchers to conduct surveys
especially with low-income populations. The Busara Lab in Trenton, NJ opened in 2014.
Hypotheses
The overarching goal of this project is to generate open-ended, exploratory, descriptive
data on the decisions and thought processes in poverty. Thus, this project tries to take
an approach that is decidedly not hypothesis-driven. However, given recent findings in
behavioral and development economics (e.g. Haushofer, Epper, Schunk, & Fehr, 2013;
Haushofer & Fehr, 2014; Mani et al., 2013; Tanaka, Camerer, & Nguyen, 2010), we can
nevertheless formulate predictions that we expect to see borne out by the data. Most
importantly, much like what was found in Portfolios of the Poor, we anticipate that the
poor have rich deliberative lives and that they are as sophisticated and considerate in
weighing options for each decision as the rich are, and in some instances (i.e. financial
decisions) they may be even more considerate (Shah, Shafir, & Mullainathan, 2015).
Importantly, we expect that the number and complexity of decisions that the poor make
7
will be greater than that of the middle- or high-income sample. However, we also
anticipate that the more decisions the poor make, the fewer options they will consider
for each given decision, leading to increased regret of decisions made.
Together, this phase of the project will provide a rich quantitative picture of the
decisions poor and rich people make.
Phase 2: Lab session
Data collected
In this phase, we will explore cognitive processes of the participants using standard
measures commonly found in behavioral sciences. The purpose of this phase is twofold: 1) it allows us to link the current study to the existing literature in cognitive
economics (Mani, et al., 2013; Carvalho, et al., 2015) and 2) it allows us to gather more
objective measures of cognition and to correlate this data with the survey data and diary
data we collect in the other phases. Participants will be invited into the lab on a month
that will be chosen randomly from the full duration of this project. These participants will
be the same as those surveyed in Phase 1, of which a subset will be selected for
Phases 3 and 4.
Cognitive measures. Raven’s Progressive Matrices will be used to assess the
participants’ reasoning abilities. The Raven’s test is commonly used as a measure of
“fluid intelligence,” assessing one’s ability to solve problems in new situations (Engle, et
8
al., 1999; Raven, 2000). As a measure of cognitive control and attention, participants
will be given Stroop-like tasks where they will be tasked with identifying images that will
either be congruent to the automatized response or incongruent, requiring a certain
level of cognitive effort (Stroop, 1935; Cohen, et al., 1990; Davidson, et al., 2006). We
also propose two new experiments as measures of cognition. In order to assess one’s
reliance on attributes when making decisions, we will use a real-effort task where
participants will be asked to make a choice between two items; one item will be
accompanied by a list of descriptive attributes (i.e. price, weight, size) and the other
item will require participants to complete a series of tasks in order to reveal the
attributes. Attribute-based models of decision-making are becoming increasingly
popular in explaining anomalies found in traditional models (Stewart, et al., 2006;
Scholten & Read, 2010). One can imagine a situation in which a person does not want
or does not need more information and therefore foregoes taking on the effort tasks,
leading to more naïve decisions; here we will test this. Finally, we will assess the
participants’ perception of price and their expensiveness threshold, a differential
threshold that suggests the minimum amount of change in a price necessary to produce
a “just noticeable difference” in expensiveness. What proportion of an item’s price
needs to change for an inexpensive item to now be considered expensive? This idea is
borrowed from decision-making models where values are derived from psychoeconomic
functions.
Economic measures. In this phase we will also measure standard risk and time
preferences. Similar to the economic measures used by Carvalho and colleagues
9
(2015) we will measure time preference using two intertemporal choice tasks (Andreoni
& Sprenger, 2012; Augenblick, et al., 2014) and one risk choice task (Eckel &
Grossman, 2002).
Hypotheses
We expect poor and rich subjects to have similar cognitive measures overall and also
exert similar information-seeking efforts, even if their behaviors are ultimately different.
We therefore hypothesize the difference in behavioral responses in the other phases
will result from variation in the environment in which subjects make decisions and not
from variation in cognitive functioning or sophistication on decision-making processes.
In this phase we will measure time and risk preferences associated with economic
decision-making as well as logical reasoning, attention, and cognitive functioning. We
will also trial two new experimental designs, expecting the poor and the rich to exert
similar effort levels to gather information prior to making a decision and exhibiting
similar proportional thresholds of expensiveness.
Phase 3: Repeated, qualitative phone-call survey
Data collected
The second phase of the project will consist of seven phone calls with a subset of
respondents (100 low-income and 100 middle- and high-income) from the previous
phases to explore the contexts in which decisions are made by tracking daily thoughts
10
and experienced emotions. This phase asks individuals what they think about on a daily
basis, what their greatest sources of worry and joy are, and what emotions they
experience during daily activities, including making decisions. Thus, in contrast to phase
1, in this phase we obtain a dynamic picture of the decision-making processes of poor
and rich individuals.
Specifically, the phone survey will consist of the following components. First,
respondents will be asked what they were thinking just before they received the call
from the field officer, whether that thought was positive or negative, and what they
spend most of their time thinking about. Second, respondents will be asked to name
one positive and one negative thing that happened on the day of the survey. Third, we
will ask respondents what their biggest source of worry in life is. Fourth, respondents
will be asked whether they recently experienced a number of negative emotions such as
anger, depression, or worry.
To eliminate selection bias, which may arise from emotional states influencing the
participants willingness to answer the phone, the timing of the phone call will be
determined by asking participants to provide up to five potential 1-hour blocks when
they are usually available to speak and randomly selecting one of these times for each
given day. If a participant does not respond, the next time block will be used. If a
participant misses a day an additional day will be added. Refusals to participate on a
given day will be taken as missing data.
11
Hypotheses
While this project is deliberately exploratory, we do expect to add to the literature by
exploring familiar results through a different lens, allowing us to formulate hypotheses
about the results of this study based on the previous literature. In particular, we expect
that the poor are more likely to think negative than positive thoughts compared to those
who are wealthier, and that they are faster in recalling negative compared to positive
events that happened to them. We further expect them to have an easier time naming
worries than the rich, and a harder time naming positive emotions. Finally, in analyzing
how positive and negative thoughts change over time, we hypothesize that we will
observe more variability in the cognition of the poor compared to the rich over time.
Together, the results from this phase will generate a dynamic picture of cognition of the
poor compared to the rich.
Phase 4: Weekly real-time diaries collected by phone
Data collected
In a third phase, we will conduct biweekly in-depth interviews over four months with a
(subset) sample of 40 low-income and 40 middle- to high-income respondents to obtain
high-frequency data on the decision-making process and respondents’ long-term goals.
In each sample we aim to have 40 individuals, 20 whom are couples in order to get a
closer look at household decision-making between the two groups.
This phase will consist of two components. First, respondents are asked about a
12
specific decision they made in the past two weeks: What considerations did they
undertake in making this decision? What options did they consider, and which factors
influenced their choice? Did they find the decision difficult or easy, and why? How did
they feel about the decision after they made it? Second, respondents will be asked to
list their long-term goals (e.g. sending a child to university). Then, for each long-term
goal, they will be asked when they hope to reach this goal, which factors they think will
help them achieve the goal, how they work towards the goal on a daily/weekly/monthly
basis, who helps them in the process, and which obstacles they might encounter.
Hypotheses
While the data collected in phase 2 will provide a rich picture of cognition in poverty, this
phase aims to take a closer look at the decision-making process. Together, the answers
to these questions will provide a rich dynamic picture of decision-making in poverty. We
hypothesize that the poor will have a greater number of decisions to consider than the
rich, and most importantly, that there will be more variability in the number of decisions
and their difficulty across time among the poor and the rich. In addition, when asking
about long-term goals, we hypothesize that the poor will have lower aspirations than the
rich and that these aspirations will be more variable over time. Additionally, we expect
that the poor will report more obstacles that can get in the way of reaching their longterm goals.
Data Analysis
13
Together, these data collection activities will provide a rich, nuanced picture of decisionmaking and cognition in poverty. Using this data, we will conduct both quantitative and
qualitative analyses. The former will provide an aggregate, representative, statistical
view of what types of decisions are most important to individuals, what the most
common factors and influences in making decisions are, and how individuals feel about
their decisions on average. Structural Topic Modeling will be used as the analytic
strategy for open-ended survey responses along with other strategies used to engage
the general public, such as word clouds.
The in-depth qualitative analysis will provide a nuanced, narrative view, exploring not
only the results of the decision-making process but also the pathways by which
decisions are made and the accompanying feelings and perceptions.
Dissemination of results
This research is unique in the extent to which it will collect fundamental data on
individual decision-making processes, and how those processes vary based on
individuals’ economic conditions. Unlike an experiment with a specific, tested
hypothesis, which can be disseminated effectively through a single journal article,
extracting value from this data will require extensive exploration of the data by
researchers of various disciplines. To enable such a process, and maximize the social
14
value of this data, we aim to disseminate both data and results broadly through a novel
“radically open” research initiative.
This project will be “radically open” from start to finish: all phases of the project,
including design, implementation, and analysis, will be fully transparent to other
researchers and the general public through an online portal and social media links. Both
other researchers and the general public can provide feedback and suggestions at all
stages of the process. Importantly, the data will be publicly available (in anonymized
form) as soon as it is collected, rather than only after publication of the first paper, and
can be analyzed by anyone. This approach contrasts with the prevalent paradigm in
social science research, in which the evolution of the project is usually only known to a
small group of researchers, which makes the process opaque to the public and the
wider research community, thereby reducing accountability and preventing useful
suggestions (both in design and analysis) from being incorporated early on (Miguel et
al., 2014; Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012). We believe that our “radically open” approach
will encourage re-analysis and replication of results as well as additional analyses of
interest to the scientific community and the general public, and will more generally
contribute to making social science more open and transparent. Busara has recently
partnered with the Center for Open Science (COS) to host the Deliberative Lives project
on their website.
In addition, the principal investigators of this study will conduct their own analysis of the
data, and publish research papers and articles describing the main scientific insights
15
from the project. These papers will be presented at academic conferences such as the
American Economic Association Annual Conference or the New England Universities
Development Conference, and will be will be submitted for publication in academic
journals. Beyond these outlets, we anticipate that the open data aspect of this research
will produce findings from a variety of researchers, who will then disseminate these
findings through various means, including conferences, news outlets and social media.
Conclusion
In sum, the Deliberative Lives project provides a novel, open-ended approach to
describing and understanding cognition and decision-making under conditions of
poverty and, in doing so, contributes importantly to a core research area of the
Foundation. In particular, the project furthers the Foundation’s goals by generating
insights about poverty which may eventually be used to design and test poverty
alleviation programs. For instance, some findings may suggest ways to remove or
reduce barriers to positive self-belief and aspirations; others may identify ways to
capitalize upon and scale up strategies that those living in poverty already use to
alleviate bandwidth taxes or commit to savings goals. At the same time, the project
pioneers a novel, open approach to social science. Together, this work will provide, in
real-time, a rich database of raw material to stimulate both research and policies to
understand and alleviate poverty.
Key Personnel
16
The project team has extensive experience in behavioral economics and psychology.
Johannes Haushofer is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs at
Princeton University and founded the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics in
Trenton, NJ and Nairobi, Kenya. He holds a Ph.D. in Neurobiology from Harvard
University and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Zurich. Jeremy Shapiro is
the President of the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics. He holds a Ph.D. in
Economics from MIT and is a co-founder and former director of GiveDirectly, an NGO
dedicated to facilitating unconditional cash transfers. He and Johannes have extensive
experience designing and conducting laboratory and field-based studies with lowincome populations in diverse settings. They have also authored numerous scholarly
articles and have a track record of producing original research on behavioral
phenomena and the relationship between stress, decision-making, and poverty. Rafael
Batista holds a B.S. (Hons) in Psychology and a B. A. in International Affairs from
Florida State University and a M.S. in Behavioral & Economic Science from the
University of Warwick and Warwick Business School. He is currently a Research
Associate at the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics. Rafael contributes an
interdisciplinary approach to behavioral science, particularly in the area of cognition and
decision-making. Together, Johannes, Jeremy, and Rafael contribute backgrounds in
behavioral economics, development economics, cognitive and decision science,
neuroscience, and social psychology that will enhance the scope of the research
questions and the quality of the data collected. At Princeton, they have access to a
17
wealth of academic resources and to a strong channel for dissemination of results to
students and researchers in the fields of psychology and public affairs.
Budget justification
A total of $116,411 is requested for this project and is comprised of the following:
•
Research assistance: $46,238 for two part-time Research Assistants for two
years to conduct data collection and analysis ($22,777 in year 1, $23,461 in year
2)
•
Fringe benefits: $15,490
•
Respondent compensation: $38,600 (Phase 1 - $9,000; Phase 2 - $12,000;
Phase 3 - $7,000; Phase 4 - $9,600; Completion Lottery - $1,000)
•
Other Direct Costs: $900
o Travel: $400 for data collection
o Equipment: $500 for 2 audio recorders ($300), airtime ($200)
•
Indirect costs (15%): $15,184
Workplan
•
March 15, 2016: Launch of Phase 1 data collection
18
•
April 1, 2016: Launch of Phase 2 data collection (two lab sessions will be held at
the beginning and end of each month for 6 months; participants will be randomly
invited to participate in one session during this period)
•
April 1, 2016: Launch of Phase 3 data collection, real-time dataset for Phases 1
and 3 posted online
•
July 1, 2016: Completion of Phase 1 data collection
•
August 1, 2016: Completion of Phase 3 data collection and start of data analysis
of Phases 1 and 3
•
October 1, 2016: Completion of data collection and start of data analysis of
Phase 2
•
November 1, 2016: Launch of Phase 4 data collection
•
November 15, 2016: Completion of data analysis of Phases 1 and 3
•
March 15, 2017: Completion of Phase 4 data collection
•
July 15, 2017: Completion of Phase 4 data analysis
•
September 15, 2017: Research paper(s) submitted
19
References
Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Risk preferences are not time preferences. The
American Economic Review, 102(7), 3357-3376.
Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment
savings product in the Philippines. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 635-672.
Augenblick, N., Niederle, M., & Sprenger, C. (2013). Working over time: Dynamic
inconsistency in real effort tasks. Forthcoming. Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2007). Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings
Behavior.
Journal
of
Economic
Perspectives,
21(3),
81–104.
http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.81
Bernard, T., Dercon, S., Orkin, K., & Taffesse, A. S. (2014). The Future in Mind:
Aspirations and Forward-Looking Behaviour in Rural Ethiopia (SSRN Scholarly
Paper No. ID 2514590). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2514590
Carvalho, L. S., Meier, S., & Wang, S. W. (in press). Poverty and economic decisionmaking: Evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. American
Economic Review.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic
processes:
a
parallel
distributed
processing
account
of
the
Stroop
effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332.
Collins, D. (Ed.). (2011). Portfolios of the poor: how the world’s poor live on $2 a day (8.
print., and 1. paperback print). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
20
Dalton, P. S., Ghosal, S., & Mani, A. (2014). Poverty and Aspirations Failure. The
Economic Journal, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12210
Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2014). Behavioral design: A new approach to development policy. Review
of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 7-35.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of
cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from
manipulations
of
memory,
inhibition,
and
task
switching.
Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037-2078.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in
attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281-295.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. (1999). Working
memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable
approach. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 128(3), 309.
Ghosal, S., Jana, S., Mani, A., Mitra, S., & Roy, S. (2013). Sex Workers, Stigma and
Self-Belief: Evidence from a Psychological Training Program in India. Warwick
University Working Paper.
Haushofer, J., Epper, T., Schunk, D., & Fehr, E. (2013). Negative Income Shocks
Increase Present Bias. University of Zurich Working Paper.
Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186),
862–867. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232491
Heller, S., Pollack, H. A., Ander, R., & Ludwig, J. (2013). Preventing Youth Violence and
Dropout: A Randomized Field Experiment (Working Paper No. 19014). National
Bureau
of
Economic
Research.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19014
21
Retrieved
from
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty Impedes Cognitive
Function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., … Van der
Laan, M. (2014). Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research. Science
(New York, N.Y.), 343(6166), 30–31. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia II. Restructuring
Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven's progressive matrices: change and stability over culture
and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing &
Health, 18, 179-183.
Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2010). The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs.
Psychological Review, 117(3), 925.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some Consequences of Having Too
Little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222426
Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity frames value. Psychological
Science, 26(4), 402-412.
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive
Psychology, 53(1), 1-26.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643.
22
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and Time Preferences: Linking
Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam. American Economic
Review, 100(1), 557–571. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.557
23
Appendix 1. Survey Instruments
Survey 1: Quantitative One-time Survey
Instrument
1. Please tell me about the most important decision you made in the last year
(Code respondent’s answer to finance, health, children, and relationships, other)
2. Please tell me about the most important decision you made in the last month
3. Please tell me about a decision you made in the last month that you are unhappy
with or that you think someone else would be unhappy with (children, spouse,
parents, neighbors, community).
4. For Decision 1, the most important decision made in the last year:
a. What did you decide in this case? (open-ended)
b. Would the decision outcomes primarily affect you or someone else (your
family, friends, community, etc)?
i. You
ii. Someone else
iii. Both
iv. Neither
c. How often do you make decisions similar to this one?
i. Almost never
ii. Rarely
iii. Sometimes
iv. Often
d. Did you consider this decision to be
i. A task that must be done
ii. An opportunity for improvement
iii. Both
iv. Neither
e. How many steps were necessary to carry out the decision you made?
24
i.
ii.
iii.
One
A few
Many
f. How long did you think about this before making a final decision?
i. Seconds
ii. Minutes
iii. Days
iv. Weeks
v. Months
vi. A year or more
g. Did you start thinking about it, then stop, then come back to it later? Yes /
No
h. Did you talk to anyone else about this decision? Yes / No
i. If yes, who?
ii. If yes, what did you ask them?
1. What they would do
2. What they have done in past situations
3. What you should do
4. Who else to talk to
5. Other
iii. If yes, did you follow their advice? Yes / N
i. Did you consider the following factors when making this decision?
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans. Y/N
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status.
Y/N
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers. Y/N
iv. Your personal comfort and pleasure. Y/N
v. Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
vi. Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
vii. Your long-term goals. Y/N
viii. How much time the action would take. Y/N
ix. What other people in your community would do. Y/N
x. Your intuition / gut feeling. Y/N
xi. What has and hasn’t worked in the past. Y/N
xii. You and your family’s immediate needs. Y/N
25
xiii.
xiv.
Your religious beliefs. Y/N
Other (specify)
j. Of the factors listed in (i), which two did you consider to be most important
in this decision? (choose 2)
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers
iv. Your personal comfort and pleasure
v. Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing
vi. Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing
vii. Your long-term goals
viii. How much time the action would take
ix. What other people in your community would do
x. Your intuition / gut feeling
xi. What has and hasn’t worked in the past
xii. You and your family’s immediate needs
xiii. Your religious beliefs
xiv. Other (specify)
k. How many other options did you consider besides what you decided?
i. No other
ii. One other
iii. A few other
iv. Many other
l. Did you have to make any important sacrifices in making this decision?
Yes / No
i. If yes, what were these sacrifices?
m. When you made this decision, over what time period did you consider the
potential impacts of this decision on yourself or your family?
i. Several minutes
ii. Several days
iii. Several months
iv. 1-2 years
v. More than 3 years
vi. Lifetime
26
n. Who does this decision impact?
i. For each person listed: did you think about this person while you
were deciding what to do? Yes / No
o. On a scale from 1-4 with 1 being completely insufficient and 4 being
completely sufficient and N/A being not considered, at the time I felt that I
had sufficient or insufficient of the following:
Completely insufficient | Moderately insufficient | Moderately sufficient | Completely
sufficient | N/A
1
2
3
4
99
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Time
Money
Knowledge or skills
Health
Social support from my friends, family, or community
Financial support from my friends, family, or community
Other (specify)
p. Did you wish you had been able to make or should have made another
decision than the one you ended up making? Yes / No
i. If yes, which factors led to you making the decision you ended up
making? (choose all that apply)
1. Insufficient time
2. Insufficient money
3. Insufficient knowledge or skills
4. Consideration of long-term goals over immediate needs or
desires
5. Consideration of immediate needs or desires over long-term
goals
6. Consideration of other people’s preferences and wellbeing
over your own (e.g. spouse, parents, children)
7. Lack of social support from your friends, family, or
community
8. My religious beliefs
9. My health status
10. Other (specify)
27
q. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being
completely, the degree to which you experienced the following while you
were making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
I felt certain that I could achieve my desired outcome
I felt this decision was easy to make
I intentionally avoided or delayed making the final decision
I felt powerless to make the best decision
In the grand scheme of things, it didn’t really matter which decision
I made
I went back and forth on this decision several times
I enjoyed making this decision
I feared that I would not make the best decision
r. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being a great
deal, how much you experienced the following feelings while you were
making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Stressed:
Overwhelmed:
Joyful / happy:
Helpless:
Energized and motivated:
Fearful / anxious:
Optimistic:
A sense of accomplishment:
s. Do you think that amount of time is: longer than it should take to make this
decision, the right amount of time or shorter than the right amount of time
to make this decision?
i. If longer, why did it take so long? (choose all that apply)
1. I deliberated because I found the decision difficult to make
2. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary money
28
3. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary information or
skills
4. I was waiting until I had enough time or was putting it off
5. I was waiting on others’ advice, support, or actions
6. Other (specify)
t. On a scale of 1 – 5, please tell me how much you agree with the following
statements:
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
I felt I should have made another decision than the one I made
I felt that I let myself or others down in my decision
I felt satisfied with my decision
I felt that this decision was very important to my or my family’s
wellbeing
I feel that I will regret my decision in the future
______________________________________________________________________
1. For Decision 2, the most important decision made in the last month:
a. What did you decide in this case? (open-ended)
b. Would the decision outcomes primarily affect you or someone else (your
family, friends, community, etc)?
i. You
ii. Someone else
iii. Both
iv. Neither
c. How often do you make decisions similar to this one?
i. Almost never
ii. Rarely
iii. Sometimes
iv. Often
d. Did you consider this decision to be
i. A task that must be done
29
ii.
iii.
iv.
An opportunity for improvement
Both
Neither
e. How many steps were necessary to carry out the decision you made?
i. One
ii. A few
iii. Many
f. How long did you think about this before making a final decision?
i. Seconds
ii. Minutes
iii. Days
iv. Weeks
v. Months
vi. A year or more
g. Did you start thinking about it, then stop, then come back to it later? Yes /
No
h. Did you talk to anyone else about this decision? Yes / No
i. If yes, who?
ii. If yes, what did you ask them?
1. What they would do
2. What they have done in past situations
3. What you should do
4. Who else to talk to
5. Other
iii. If yes, did you follow their advice? Yes / N
i. Did you consider the following factors when making this decision?
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans. Y/N
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status.
Y/N
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers. Y/N
iv. Your personal comfort and pleasure. Y/N
v. Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
vi. Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
vii. Your long-term goals. Y/N
30
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
How much time the action would take. Y/N
What other people in your community would do. Y/N
Your intuition / gut feeling. Y/N
What has and hasn’t worked in the past. Y/N
You and your family’s immediate needs. Y/N
Your religious beliefs. Y/N
Other (specify)
j. Of the factors listed in (i), which two did you consider to be most important
in this decision? (choose 2)
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers
iv. Your personal comfort and pleasure
v. Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing
vi. Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing
vii. Your long-term goals
viii. How much time the action would take
ix. What other people in your community would do
x. Your intuition / gut feeling
xi. What has and hasn’t worked in the past
xii. You and your family’s immediate needs
xiii. Your religious beliefs
xiv. Other (specify)
k. How many other options did you consider besides what you decided?
i. No other
ii. One other
iii. A few other
iv. Many other
l. Did you have to make any important sacrifices in making this decision?
Yes / No
i. If yes, what were these sacrifices?
m. When you made this decision, over what time period did you consider the
potential impacts of this decision on yourself or your family?
i. Several minutes
ii. Several days
31
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Several months
1-2 years
More than 3 years
Lifetime
n. Who does this decision impact?
i. For each person listed: did you think about this person while you
were deciding what to do? Yes / No
o. On a scale from 1-4 with 1 being completely insufficient and 4 being
completely sufficient and N/A being not considered, at the time I felt that I
had sufficient or insufficient of the following:
Completely insufficient | Moderately insufficient | Moderately sufficient | Completely
sufficient | N/A
1
2
3
4
99
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Time
Money
Knowledge or skills
Health
Social support from my friends, family, or community
Financial support from my friends, family, or community
Other (specify)
p. Did you wish you had been able to make or should have made another
decision than the one you ended up making? Yes / No
i. If yes, which factors led to you making the decision you ended up
making? (choose all that apply)
1. Insufficient time
2. Insufficient money
3. Insufficient knowledge or skills
4. Consideration of long-term goals over immediate needs or
desires
5. Consideration of immediate needs or desires over long-term
goals
6. Consideration of other people’s preferences and wellbeing
over your own (e.g. spouse, parents, children)
7. Lack of social support from your friends, family, or
community
32
8. My religious beliefs
9. My health status
10. Other (specify)
q. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being
completely, the degree to which you experienced the following while you
were making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
I felt certain that I could achieve my desired outcome
I felt this decision was easy to make
I intentionally avoided or delayed making the final decision
I felt powerless to make the best decision
In the grand scheme of things, it didn’t really matter which decision
I made
I went back and forth on this decision several times
I enjoyed making this decision
I feared that I would not make the best decision
r. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being a great
deal, how much you experienced the following feelings while you were
making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Stressed:
Overwhelmed:
Joyful / happy:
Helpless:
Energized and motivated:
Fearful / anxious:
Optimistic:
A sense of accomplishment:
s. Do you think that amount of time is: longer than it should take to make this
decision, the right amount of time or shorter than the right amount of time
to make this decision?
33
i.
If longer, why did it take so long? (choose all that apply)
1. I deliberated because I found the decision difficult to make
2. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary money
3. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary information or
skills
4. I was waiting until I had enough time or was putting it off
5. I was waiting on others’ advice, support, or actions
6. Other (specify)
t. On a scale of 1 – 5, please tell me how much you agree with the following
statements:
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
I felt I should have made another decision than the one I made
I felt that I let myself or others down in my decision
I felt satisfied with my decision
I felt that this decision was very important to my or my family’s
wellbeing
I feel that I will regret my decision in the future
______________________________________________________________________
1. For Decision 3, a decision you made in the last month that you are unhappy with
or that you think someone else would be unhappy with:
a. What did you decide in this case? (open-ended)
b. Would the decision outcomes primarily affect you or someone else (your
family, friends, community, etc)?
i. You
ii. Someone else
iii. Both
iv. Neither
c. How often do you make decisions similar to this one?
i. Almost never
ii. Rarely
iii. Sometimes
34
iv.
Often
d. Did you consider this decision to be
i. A task that must be done
ii. An opportunity for improvement
iii. Both
iv. Neither
e. How many steps were necessary to carry out the decision you made?
i. One
ii. A few
iii. Many
f. How long did you think about this before making a final decision?
i. Seconds
ii. Minutes
iii. Days
iv. Weeks
v. Months
vi. A year or more
g. Did you start thinking about it, then stop, then come back to it later? Yes /
No
h. Did you talk to anyone else about this decision? Yes / No
i. If yes, who?
ii. If yes, what did you ask them?
1. What they would do
2. What they have done in past situations
3. What you should do
4. Who else to talk to
5. Other
iii. If yes, did you follow their advice? Yes / N
i. Did you consider the following factors when making this decision?
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans. Y/N
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status.
Y/N
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers. Y/N
35
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
Your personal comfort and pleasure. Y/N
Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing. Y/N
Your long-term goals. Y/N
How much time the action would take. Y/N
What other people in your community would do. Y/N
Your intuition / gut feeling. Y/N
What has and hasn’t worked in the past. Y/N
You and your family’s immediate needs. Y/N
Your religious beliefs. Y/N
Other (specify)
j. Of the factors listed in (i), which two did you consider to be most important
in this decision? (choose 2)
i. Financial security, such as the need to pay fees, purchase basic
needs, pay off loans
ii. What your friends and peers would think of you / your social status
iii. Your relationships with friends, family, or peers
iv. Your personal comfort and pleasure
v. Your personal health, safety, and wellbeing
vi. Your family’s health, safety, and wellbeing
vii. Your long-term goals
viii. How much time the action would take
ix. What other people in your community would do
x. Your intuition / gut feeling
xi. What has and hasn’t worked in the past
xii. You and your family’s immediate needs
xiii. Your religious beliefs
xiv. Other (specify)
k. How many other options did you consider besides what you decided?
i. No other
ii. One other
iii. A few other
iv. Many other
l. Did you have to make any important sacrifices in making this decision?
Yes / No
i. If yes, what were these sacrifices?
36
m. When you made this decision, over what time period did you consider the
potential impacts of this decision on yourself or your family?
i. Several minutes
ii. Several days
iii. Several months
iv. 1-2 years
v. More than 3 years
vi. Lifetime
n. Who does this decision impact?
i. For each person listed: did you think about this person while you
were deciding what to do? Yes / No
o. On a scale from 1-4 with 1 being completely insufficient and 4 being
completely sufficient and N/A being not considered, at the time I felt that I
had sufficient or insufficient of the following:
Completely insufficient | Moderately insufficient | Moderately sufficient | Completely
sufficient | N/A
1
2
3
4
99
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Time
Money
Knowledge or skills
Health
Social support from my friends, family, or community
Financial support from my friends, family, or community
Other (specify)
p. Did you wish you had been able to make or should have made another
decision than the one you ended up making? Yes / No
i. If yes, which factors led to you making the decision you ended up
making? (choose all that apply)
1. Insufficient time
2. Insufficient money
3. Insufficient knowledge or skills
4. Consideration of long-term goals over immediate needs or
desires
5. Consideration of immediate needs or desires over long-term
goals
37
6. Consideration of other people’s preferences and wellbeing
over your own (e.g. spouse, parents, children)
7. Lack of social support from your friends, family, or
community
8. My religious beliefs
9. My health status
10. Other (specify)
q. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being
completely, the degree to which you experienced the following while you
were making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
I felt certain that I could achieve my desired outcome
I felt this decision was easy to make
I intentionally avoided or delayed making the final decision
I felt powerless to make the best decision
In the grand scheme of things, it didn’t really matter which decision
I made
I went back and forth on this decision several times
I enjoyed making this decision
I feared that I would not make the best decision
r. Please rate on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being not at all and 4 being a great
deal, how much you experienced the following feelings while you were
making this decision:
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Stressed:
Overwhelmed:
Joyful / happy:
Helpless:
Energized and motivated:
Fearful / anxious:
Optimistic:
A sense of accomplishment:
38
s. Do you think that amount of time is: longer than it should take to make this
decision, the right amount of time or shorter than the right amount of time
to make this decision?
i. If longer, why did it take so long? (choose all that apply)
1. I deliberated because I found the decision difficult to make
2. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary money
3. I was waiting until I obtained the necessary information or
skills
4. I was waiting until I had enough time or was putting it off
5. I was waiting on others’ advice, support, or actions
6. Other (specify)
t. On a scale of 1 – 5, please tell me how much you agree with the following
statements:
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
I felt I should have made another decision than the one I made
I felt that I let myself or others down in my decision
I felt satisfied with my decision
I felt that this decision was very important to my or my family’s
wellbeing
v. I feel that I will regret my decision in the future
______________________________________________________________________
_
The rest of the survey is on decision-making in general and is not specific to any
particular decision you have listed above.
1. Do you think you better, worse, or about the same as other people at making
decisions?
2. For decisions on the way you spend money on necessary items (e.g. basic
foods, school fees, rent), how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
39
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
3. For decisions on the way you spend money on leisure items (e.g. alcohol, nonessential clothes, movies, cigarettes, etc), how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
4. For decisions on your work/business, how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
5. For decisions on loans or savings, how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
6. For decisions on how you spend your time, how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
a. enjoy making the decision?
40
4
4
4
b.
c.
d.
e.
find it difficult to make the decision?
care about the decision?
find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
7. For decisions affecting your family, including your spouse and children, how
much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
8. For decisions affecting your relationships with friends and your community, how
much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
4
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
9. For decisions on your health, how much do you
Not at all
A little/somewhat
A lot/mostly
Completely
1
2
3
a. enjoy making the decision?
b. find it difficult to make the decision?
c. care about the decision?
d. find yourself changing your mind on the final decision?
e. feel fearful about the possible consequences of the decision?
4
14.
On a scale of 1 – 5, please tell me how much you agree with the following
statements:
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
41
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
a.
My life is determined by my own actions
b.
The decisions I make have a large effect on the happiness and health of my
family
c.
I expect things to go well for me
d.
To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.
e.
I do not have the resources necessary to make the best decisions
f.
When things go right in my life, it is usually because I’m lucky
g.
I feel that the world is working against me
h.
When things go wrong in my life, it is most often because of what I’ve done or
failed to do
i.
I feel that the future will provide me with what I need
j.
It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to
be a matter of good or bad fortune.
k.
I can pretty much determine what will happen to me financially
l.
I am happy with my life as a whole these days
______________________________________________________________________
Abbreviated Day reconstruction
Summary Full Day
INTERVIEWER: For this module, you will ask the respondent to reconstruct his or
her entire previous day beginning from when s/he woke up until s/he went to
sleep. You will not record the day in an event-by-event manner. You will only
record broadly what was done in the morning, afternoon and evening. You will
also ask the respondent how s/he felt during these 3 parts of the day.
In addition, you will ask details about one experience from each part of the day.
INTRODUCTION to Day Reconstruction - Full Day
Now I would like to ask you questions about what you did yesterday. I want you to
try to remember the sequence of activities that you did from when you woke up until
when you went to sleep last night.
I will start by asking you what you did in the morning yesterday, and you should just
42
give me a short description. Then I will ask about the afternoon and then the evening.
At what time did you wake up yesterday?
ŸŸ:ŸŸ TIME
Q7013
INTERVIEWER: If respondent can’t remember, get
his or her best guess.
At what time did you go to sleep yesterday?
ŸŸ:ŸŸ TIME
Q7014
INTERVIEWER: If respondent can’t remember, get
his or her best guess.
INTERVIEWER: Please note for Q7015 and Q7016, Q7050 and Q7051, Q7100
and Q7101 :
·
Circle all activities that the person spontaneously mentions.
·
You do not need to record the order and you do not need to record an item
that is repeated.
·
This does not have to be comprehensive. It is just meant to be an
approximation.
·
Please also circle all people that they say they were with.
·
If the person takes more than 3 minutes to tell you about their
morning/afternoon/evening experiences, you should ask them to give you less
detail.
MORNING
Q7015
Please tell me the main things that you did yesterday morning from the
time you woke up until around noon/mid-day. Please also mention if
you were talking or interacting with anyone for any parts of the morning.
By interacting with, I mean were you consistently paying attention to
someone. For example, if you were bathing a young child you would be
interacting with them even if you were not talking. On the other hand,
talking to someone for less than 5 minutes does not count as
interacting.
Be sure to cover as much as you can remember. You don’t have to go
in order, but it’s probably easier that way. Be sure to stop with activities
43
from around noon/mid-day.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WORKING
PREPARING FOOD
DOING HOUSEWORK
SUBSISTENCE FARMING
WATCHING CHILDREN
SHOPPING
WALKING SOMEWHERE
TRAVELING BY BICYCLE
TRAVELING BY
CAR/BUS/TRAIN
10 REST (INCLUDES TEA/COFFEE
BREAK)
11 CHATTING WITH SOMEONE
12 PLAYING (INCLUDES
CARDS/GAMES)
13 READING
14 LISTENING TO RADIO
15 WATCHING TV
16 EXERCISING OR LEISURELY WALK
17 OTHER LEISURELY ACTIVITY
18
GROOMING OR
BATHING
19 EATING
20 RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY
21
PROVIDING
CARE TO
SOMEONE
22 INTIMATE
RELATIONS/SE
X
23 WENT TO
SLEEP FOR THE
NIGHT
Q701
6
1
2
3
ALONE
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN (AGED 18
YEARS AND OLDER)
4
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
5
FAMILY (OTHER THAN SPOUSE,
CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN)
6
FRIENDS
7
CO-WORKERS
87
OTHER, SPECIFY:
Q701
7
Did you do anything else
before noon/mid-day
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7015 ABOVE.
44
yesterday?
Q701
8
Q7026
Were you talking or
interacting with anyone
else before noon/mid-day
yesterday?
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7016 ABOVE
Now I want you to think about the XXX
(from Q7015) you mentioned during the
morning.
ŸŸ:ŸŸ HOURS : MINUTES
How long did this activity last?
ŸŸ:ŸŸ TIME
Q7027
At what time did this activity begin?
INTERVIEWER: If respondent has
trouble with exact time, get estimate or
approximate.
Q7028
Were you talking or interacting with
anyone when you did this?
By
interacting with, I mean were you
consistently
paying
attention
to
someone. For example, if you were
bathing a young child you would be
interacting with them even if you were
not talking. On the other hand, talking to
someone for less than 5 minutes does
not count as interacting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
87
ALONE ……..……è
Q7029
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
FAMILY (OTHER THAN
SPOUSE/CHILDREN)
FRIENDS
CO-WORKERS
OTHER, SPECIFY:
INTERVIEWER: Respondent may
provide more than one answer - circle
responses.
Q7028a. At the time, how friendly were
45
1
2
Very friendly
A little friendly
you feeling towards this person (these
people)?
3
4
A little irritated
Very irritated
Please think about how you felt yesterday morning during your XXX (Q7015). Rate
your feelings from 0 to 6 where 0 means you did not feel like that at all and 6 means
you felt very much like that.
Not at all
Very
much
Q7029
How worried were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7030
How rushed were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7031
How irritated or
angry were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7032
How depressed
were you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7033
How tense or
stressed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7034
How calm or
relaxed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7035
How much were
you enjoying what
you were doing?
0
2
3
4
5
6
1
AFTERNOON
Q7050
Please tell me the main things that you did yesterday afternoon from
around noon/mid-day until evening time (around 18.00 or 6pm). Please
also mention if anyone was with you for any parts of the afternoon.
Be sure to cover as much as you can remember. You don’t have to go
46
in order, but it’s probably easier that way. Be sure to describe only the
activities from your afternoon yesterday between mid-day and evening.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WORKING
PREPARING FOOD
DOING HOUSEWORK
SUBSISTENCE FARMING
WATCHING CHILDREN
SHOPPING
WALKING SOMEWHERE
TRAVELING BY BICYCLE
TRAVELING BY
CAR/BUS/TRAIN
10 REST (INCLUDES TEA/COFFEE
BREAK)
11 CHATTING WITH SOMEONE
12 PLAYING (INCLUDES
CARDS/GAMES)
13 READING
14 LISTENING TO RADIO
15 WATCHING TV
16 EXERCISING OR LEISURELY
WALK
17 OTHER LEISURELY ACTIVITY
18
GROOMING OR
BATHING
19 EATING
20 RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY
21
PROVIDING
CARE TO
SOMEONE
22 INTIMATE
RELATIONS/SE
X
23 WENT TO
SLEEP FOR THE
NIGHT
Q705
1
1
2
3
ALONE
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN (AGED 18
YEARS AND OLDER)
4
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
5
FAMILY (OTHER THAN SPOUSE,
CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN)
6
FRIENDS
7
CO-WORKERS
87
OTHER, SPECIFY:
47
Q705
2
Did you do anything else
yesterday afternoon
between noon/ mid-day
and about 6pm (18.00)?
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7050 ABOVE.
Q705
3
Were you talking or
interacting with anyone
else between noon/midday and 6pm (evening)
yesterday?
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7051 ABOVE
Q7066
Now I want you to think about the
YYY (from Q7050) you mentioned
during the morning.
ŸŸ:ŸŸ HOURS : MINUTES
How long did this activity last?
ŸŸ:ŸŸ TIME
Q7067
At what time did this activity begin?
INTERVIEWER: If respondent has
trouble with exact time, get estimate
or approximate.
Q7068
Were you talking or interacting with
anyone when you did this?
By
interacting with, I mean were you
consistently paying attention to
someone. For example, if you were
bathing a young child you would be
interacting with them even if you were
not talking. On the other hand, talking
to someone for less than 5 minutes
does not count as interacting.
INTERVIEWER: Respondent may
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
87
ALONE ……..……è Q7069
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
FAMILY (OTHER THAN
SPOUSE/CHILDREN)
FRIENDS
CO-WORKERS
OTHER, SPECIFY:
provide more than one answer circle responses.
1
2
3
4
Q7068a. At the time, how friendly
were you feeling towards this person
(these people)?
Very friendly
A little friendly
A little irritated
Very irritated
Please think about how you felt yesterday afternoon during your YYY (Q7050. Rate
your feelings from 0 to 6 where 0 means you did not feel like that at all and 6 means
you felt very much like that.
Not at
all
Very
much
Q7069
How worried were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7070
How rushed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7071
How irritated or angry
were you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7072
How depressed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7073
How tense or stressed
were you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7074
How calm or relaxed were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q7075
How much were you
enjoying what you were
doing?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
EVENING
Q7100
Please tell me the main things that you did yesterday evening from
around 6pm (18.00) until you went to sleep. Please also mention if
anyone was with you for any parts of the evening.
49
Be sure to cover as much as you can remember. You don’t have to go
in order, but it’s probably easier that way.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WORKING
PREPARING FOOD
DOING HOUSEWORK
SUBSISTENCE FARMING
WATCHING CHILDREN
SHOPPING
WALKING SOMEWHERE
TRAVELING BY BICYCLE
TRAVELING BY CAR/BUS/TRAIN
10 REST
(INCLUDES
TEA/COFFEE
BREAK)
11 CHATTING
WITH SOMEONE
12 PLAYING
(INCLUDES
CARDS/GAMES)
13 READING
14 LISTENING
TO RADIO
15 WATCHING
TV
16
EXERCISING OR
LEISURELY
WALK
17 OTHER
LEISURELY
ACTIVITY
Q7101
1
2
3
ALONE
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN (AGED 18
YEARS AND OLDER)
4
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
5
FAMILY (OTHER THAN SPOUSE,
CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN)
6
FRIENDS
7
CO-WORKERS
50
18
GROOMING OR
BATHING
19 EATING
20 RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY
21
PROVIDING
CARE TO
SOMEONE
22 INTIMATE
RELATIONS/SE
X
23 WENT TO
SLEEP FOR THE
NIGHT
87
OTHER, SPECIFY:
Q710
2
Did you do anything else
yesterday evening
between around 6pm and
going to bed?
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7100 ABOVE.
Q710
3
Were you talking or
interacting with anyone
else between around 6pm
and going to bed
yesterday?
CIRCLE RESPONSES
IN Q7101 ABOVE
Q711
1
Now I want you to think about the ZZZ
(from Q7100) you mentioned from
yesterday evening.
ŸŸ:ŸŸ HOURS : MINUTES
How long did this activity last?
ŸŸ:ŸŸ TIME
Q711
2
At what time did this activity begin?
INTERVIEWER: If respondent has trouble
with exact time, get estimate or
approximate.
Q711
3
Were you talking or interacting with anyone
when you did this? By interacting with, I
mean were you consistently paying
attention to someone. For example, if you
were bathing a young child you would be
interacting with them even if you were not
talking. On the other hand, talking to
someone for less than 5 minutes does not
51
1
2
3
4
ALONE ……..……è Q7114
SPOUSE
ADULT CHILDREN
YOUNG CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN
5
FAMILY (OTHER THAN
SPOUSE/CHILDREN)
6
FRIENDS
count as interacting.
7
CO-WORKERS
87 OTHER, SPECIFY:
INTERVIEWER: Respondent may provide
more than one answer - circle responses.
Q7113a. At the time, how friendly were you
feeling towards this person (these people)?
1
2
3
4
Very friendly
A little friendly
A little irritated
Very irritated
Please think about how you felt yesterday evening during your ZZZ (Q7100). Rate
how you were feeling from 0 to 6 where 0 means you did not feel like that at all and 6
means you felt very much like that.
Not at
all
Ver
y
muc
h
Q711
4
How worried were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
5
How rushed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
6
How irritated or angry were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
6
How depressed were you
feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
7
How tense or stressed were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
8
How calm or relaxed were
you feeling?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q711
9
How much were you
enjoying what you were
doing?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
52
Survey 2: Short qualitative phone call survey (6 calls over 2 week period)
Instrument
Call 1
Question
What were you thinking about just before the phone rang for this call?
Was this thought more positive or negative?
Can you name one thing that went well for you today?
What was the cause of it?
Can you name one thing that did not go well for you today?
What was the cause of it?
What is your biggest source of joy in life at the moment?
Why is this your biggest source of joy in life in general?
What is your biggest source of worry in life at the moment?
Why is this your biggest source of worry in life in general?
What do you spend the most time thinking about?
Which category would you say this falls into?
Would you say you think more about good things than bad things?
Who do you most often think about?
What were you doing just before the phone rang?
1 WORKING
10 REST (INCLUDES
18 GROOMING OR
2 SUBSISTENCE
TEA/COFFEE BREAK)
BATHING(SELF) 19
FARMING
11 CHATTING WITH
EATING
3 PREPARING FOOD
SOMEONE
20 RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY
4 DOING HOUSEWORK 12 PLAYING (INCLUDES 21 PROVIDING CARE TO
5 WATCHING CHILDREN CARDS/GAMES)
SOMEONE 22 INTIMATE
6 SHOPPING
13 READING
RELATIONS / SEX
7 WALKING
14 LISTENING TO RADIO 23 WENT TO SLEEP FOR
SOMEWHERE
15 WATCHING TV
THE NIGHT
8 TRAVELING BY
16 EXERCISING OR
BICYCLE
LEISURELY WALK
9 TRAVELING BY
17 OTHER LEISURELY
CAR/BUS/TRAIN
ACTIVITY
Were you talking or interacting with anyone when you did this? If so,
53
who?
1 ALONE .............. Q7019
2 SPOUSE
3 ADULT CHILDREN
4 YOUNG CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN
5 FAMILY (OTHER THAN SPOUSE/CHILDREN)
6 FRIENDS
7 CO-WORKERS
87 OTHER,SPECIFY
How worried were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very much)
How rushed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very much)
How irritated or angry were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How depressed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very
much)
How tense or stressed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How calm or relaxed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How much were you enjoying what you were doing? (1=Not at all,
2=A little, 3=Very much)
Now I will ask you some questions about how you felt overall
yesterday.
Looking at the whole day (morning, afternoon, AND evening), please
tell me whether you had these feelings for much of the day. Please
just answer “yes” or “no”.
Did you feel worried for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel rushed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel irritated or angry for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Did you feel depressed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel tense or stressed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Did you feel calm or relaxed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Were you enjoying what you were doing for most of the day
yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel lonely for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel bored? Yes or No.
Did you feel physical pain for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel sleepiness? Yes or No.
Did you have a stomach ache at any time? Yes or No.
Did you have a headache at any time? Yes or No.
54
Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday? Yes or No.
Calls 2-6
What were you thinking about just before the phone rang for this call?
Was this thought more positive or negative?
Can you name one thing that went well for you today?
What was the cause of it?
Can you name one thing that did not go well for you today? / Bende
inyalo wache
What was the cause of it?
What is your biggest source of joy in life at the moment?
What is your biggest source of worry in life at the moment?
What were you doing just before the phone rang?
1 WORKING
2 SUBSISTENCE
FARMING
3 PREPARING FOOD
4 DOING HOUSEWORK
5 WATCHING CHILDREN
6 SHOPPING
7 WALKING
SOMEWHERE
8 TRAVELING BY
BICYCLE
9 TRAVELING BY
CAR/BUS/TRAIN
10 REST (INCLUDES
18 GROOMING OR
TEA/COFFEE BREAK)
BATHING(SELF) 19
11 CHATTING WITH
EATING
SOMEONE
20 RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY
12 PLAYING (INCLUDES 21 PROVIDING CARE TO
CARDS/GAMES)
SOMEONE 22 INTIMATE
13 READING
RELATIONS / SEX
14 LISTENING TO RADIO 23 WENT TO SLEEP FOR
15 WATCHING TV
THE NIGHT
16 EXERCISING OR
LEISURELY WALK
17 OTHER LEISUREL Y
ACTIVITY
55
Were you talking or interacting with anyone when you did this? If so,
who?
1 ALONE ..............︎ Q7019
2 SPOUSE
3 ADULT CHILDREN
4 YOUNG CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN
5 FAMILY (OTHER THAN SPOUSE/CHILDREN)
6 FRIENDS
7 CO-WORKERS
87 OTHER,SPECIFY
How worried were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very much)
How rushed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very much)
How irritated or angry were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How depressed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little, 3=Very
much)
How tense or stressed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How calm or relaxed were you feeling? (1=Not at all, 2=A little,
3=Very much)
How much were you enjoying what you were doing? (1=Not at all,
2=A little, 3=Very much)
Now I will ask you some questions about how you felt overall
yesterday.
Looking at the whole day (morning, afternoon, AND evening), please
tell me whether you had these feelings for much of the day. Please
just answer “yes” or “no”.
Did you feel worried for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel rushed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel irritated or angry for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Did you feel depressed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel tense or stressed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Did you feel calm or relaxed for much of the day yesterday? Yes or
No.
Were you enjoying what you were doing for most of the day
yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel lonely for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel bored? Yes or No.
Did you feel physical pain for much of the day yesterday? Yes or No.
Did you feel sleepiness? Yes or No.
Did you have a stomach ache at any time? Yes or No.
56
Did you have a headache at any time? Yes or No.
Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday? Yes or No.
57
Survey 3: Real-time diaries, phone or in-person qualitative interview (bi/weekly)
Instrument
Interview 1
1. Can you tell me about a decision you’ve made in the past 2 weeks?
a. How did you make this decision? What were your steps?
b. What options did you consider? What options did you sacrifice?
c. What factors did you take into consideration when making the decision?
What were your priorities?
d. Have certain important recent events affected your decision? If so, what
occurred and how did they affect your decision?
e. Did you find making this decision difficult or easy? If either, why? What
did you enjoy and what did you not like about making this decision?
f. How did you feel about this decision and its outcomes?
g. Did this decision affect your long term goals in any way?
2. What decisions are you currently thinking about that you have not yet made?
a. What steps are you taking towards making this decision?
b. What options are you considering?
c. What factors are you taking into consideration? What are your priorities?
d. What, if anything, is preventing you from making your final decision?
e. How do you feel about making this decision?
f. Do you find making this decision difficult or easy? If either, why? What do
you enjoy and what do you not like about making this decision?
g. Do you plan to make this decision in the coming week?
3. What are your long-term goals? (look for specificity, difficulty, timeline)
a. For each goal:
i. By what time point do you think you can achieve this goal?
ii. How do you work towards it daily or weekly?
iii. Who, if anyone, helps you?
iv. How certain are you that you can achieve it?
v. What helps you achieve your goal?
58
vi.
What prevents you from achieving your goal?
Interviews 2-8
1. Can you tell me about a decision you’ve made in the past 2 weeks?
a. How did you make this decision? What were your steps?
b. What options did you consider? What options did you sacrifice?
c. What factors did you take into consideration when making the decision?
What were your priorities?
d. Have certain important recent events affected your decision? If so, what
occurred and how did they affect your decision?
e. Did you find making this decision difficult or easy? If either, why? What
did you enjoy and what did you not like about making this decision?
f. How did you feel about this decision and its outcomes?
g. Did this decision affect your long term goals in any way?
2. What decisions are you currently thinking about that you have not yet made?
a. What steps are you taking towards making this decision?
b. What options are you considering?
c. What factors are you taking into consideration? What are your priorities?
d. What, if anything, is preventing you from making your final decision?
e. How do you feel about making this decision?
f. Do you find making this decision difficult or easy? If either, why? What do
you enjoy and what do you not like about making this decision?
g. Do you plan to make this decision in the coming week?
3. What decision did you make this week that you wish you hadn’t made?
a. Why did you make this decision?
4. Did you hope to make a particular decision this week but did not?
a. If yes, why did you not make it?
59
JOHANNES HAUSHOFER
427 Peretsman Scully Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08540
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: 617 360 1605
Website: www.princeton.edu/joha
Education
2012
UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH
Ph.D., Economics (summa cum laude). Advisor: Ernst Fehr
2008
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ph.D., Neurobiology. Advisors: Nancy Kanwisher, Margaret Livingstone
2003
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
B.A. (First Class Honours), Physiology, Psychology, Philosophy
Academic Positions
2014–
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Assistant Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
2011–14
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Prize Fellow in Economics
2011–14
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Postdoctoral Fellow, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
Affiliations
2014–
Associated Faculty Member, Department of Economics, Princeton University
2014–
Faculty Affiliate, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Princeton University
2014–
Faculty Affiliate, ideas42
2012–
Scientific Director, Busara Center for Behavioral Economics
2009–
Research Network Member, Innovations for Poverty Action
Awards
2011–14
Prize Fellowship in Economics, Harvard University
2008
Mind-Brain-Behavior Award, Harvard University
2003–08
Presidential Scholarship, Harvard University
1
2006–08
PhD Scholarship, German National Merit Foundation
2005–08
PhD Scholarship, Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds
2003
Gibbs Prize (best thesis), University of Oxford
2002
Markby Scholarship for First Class in second year exams, Balliol College, University of Oxford
2002
Scatcherd European Scholarship, University of Oxford
1999–2006 Undergraduate Scholarship, German National Merit Foundation
Publications and Working Papers
1. The Price of Poverty: Psychology and the Cycle of Need. Foreign Affairs (2014), 138739.
2. Neurobiological Poverty Traps (with Molly Crockett & Gwen Lawson). Background paper prepared
for the World Development Report 2015.
3. A Methodology for Laboratory Experiments in Developing Countries: Examples from the Busara
Center (with Marie Collins, Giovanna de Giusti, Conor Hughes, Chaning Jang, Maneesh Kuruvila,
Joseph Muiruri Njoroge, and James Vancel). October 2012.
4. Psychology and Neurobiology of Poverty (with Molly Crockett and Gwen Lawson). Background
paper prepared for the World Development Report 2015.
5. Development of impulse control and associated vmPFC-DLPFC connectivity explains children’s
increased resistance to temptation in intertemporal choice (with Niko Steinbeis, Ernst Fehr, and
Tania Singer). Cerebral Cortex (in press).
6. The Behavioural Economics of Poverty (with Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington). In Barriers to and Opportunities for Poverty Reduction: Prospects for Private Sector Led-Interventions. Istanbul: UNDP Istanbul
International Center for Private Sector in Development (2014).
7. On the Psychology of Poverty (with Ernst Fehr). Science 344 (2014), 862–867.
8. Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program
in Kenya (with Jeremy Shapiro). November 2013.
9. Negative Income Shocks Increase Discount Rates (with Ernst Fehr and Daniel Schunk). July 2013.
10. Negative Rainfall Shocks Increase Levels of the Stress Hormone Cortisol Among Poor Farmers in
Kenya (with Matthieu Chemin and Joost de Laat). July 2013.
11. Time-Dependent Effect of Hydrocortisone Administration on Intertemporal Choice (with Sandra
Cornelisse, Vanessa van Ast, Maayke Seinstra, and Marian Joels). July 2013.
12. The Psychology of Poverty: Evidence from 43 Countries. September 2013.
13. Market Convergence and Equilibrium in a Kenyan Informal Settlement (with Noémie Zurlinden).
September 2013.
14. The Social Cost of Randomization (with Jeremy Shapiro). September 2013.
15. No Effects of Psychosocial Stress on Intertemporal Choice (with Sandra Cornelisse, Maayke Seinstra,
Ernst Fehr, Marian Joëls, and Tobias Kalenscher). PLoS One 8 (2013), e78597.
2
16. Low Income is Associated with High Baseline Levels and Low Stress Reactivity of Cortisol, but Not
Alpha Amylase (with Sandra Cornelisse, Marian Joels, Tobias Kalenscher, and Ernst Fehr). December 2011.
17. The role of testosterone in social interaction (with Ernst Fehr and Christoph Eisenegger). Trends in
Cognitive Science 15 (2011), 263–271.
18. Reply to Golan and Rosenblatt: Revisiting the statistical analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
confirms that both sides retaliate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (2011): E55–E56.
19. Both Sides Retaliate in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (with Nancy Kanwisher and Anat Biletzki).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (2010), 17927–17932.
20. The Legal Brain: How Does the Brain Make Judgments about Crimes? (with Ernst Fehr). Scientific
American Online (2009).
21. You shouldn’t have: your brain on others’ crimes (with Ernst Fehr). Neuron 60 (2008), 738–740.
22. Multivariate Patterns in Object-Selective Cortex Dissociate Neural and Perceptual Similarity (with
Margaret Livingstone and Nancy Kanwisher). PLoS Biology 6 (2008), e187.
23. Sensitivity to Object Parts in Human Object-Selective Cortex (with Chris Baker, Margaret Livingstone, and Nancy Kanwisher). Journal of Neurophysiology 100 (2008), 753–762.
24. For Love or Money: A Common Neural Currency for Social and Monetary Reward (with Rebecca
Saxe). Neuron 58 (2008), 164–165.
25. Interpreting fMRI data: Maps, modules, and dimensions (with Hans op de Beeck and Nancy Kanwisher). Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9 (2007), 123–135.
26. In the Eye of the Beholder: Visual Experience and Categories in the Human Brain (with Nancy
Kanwisher). Neuron 53 (2007), 773–775.
27. Express saccades: What is coded for their production? (with Peter Schiller). Experimental Brain Research 22 (2005), 1–9.
28. How do target predictability and precueing affect the production of express saccades in monkeys?
(with Peter Schiller and Geoffrey Kendall). European Journal of Neuroscience 19 (2004), 1963–1968.
29. An examination of the variables that affect express saccade generation (with Peter Schiller and Geoffrey Kendall). Visual Neuroscience 21 (2004), 119–127. 2006
Ongoing Work and Papers in Prepration
1. Health Insurance, Cash Transfers, and Stress Hormones: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the
Slums of Nairobi (with Matthieu Chemin) [endline completed]
2. Non-financial Awards and Community Monitoring for Clinic Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Sierra Leone (with Oeindrila Dube and Bilal Siddiqi) [endline completed]
3. "Count your Blessings": Can Positive Psychology Improve Well-Being in Kenya? Evidence from a
Randomized Controlled Trial (with Chaning Jang and Linda Kleppin) [baseline ongoing]
4. Heat Stress and Performance: Evidence from Weather and Test Scores in Kenya (with Simone Schaner)
Research Funding
3
1. Improving Health Service Delivery through Community Monitoring & Non-Financial Awards, Sierra
Leone, 2012–2014, USAID AID-OAA-F-12-00045, $432,155. Role: PI.
2. Reducing Domestic Violence: Economic Conditions, Psychological Well-being, and Social Norms.
Anonymous donor, $280,000. Role: PI.
3. Poverty, Stress, and Discounting: A Potential Micro-Mechanism for Behavior Change, NIH R01AG039297, 2010–2015, $1,250,000. Role: PI.
4. The Neurobiology and Behavioral Economics of Poverty, Cogito Foundation, 2010–2013, CHF 164,000.
Role: Co-PI.
5. Neural Mechanisms of Temporal Discounting, Bial Foundation, 2006–2008, $60,000. Role: Co-PI.
(2006)
Conference Presentations
Scheduled Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer
Program in Kenya (with Jeremy Shapiro). American Economic Association Annual Meeting,
Boston
Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program in Kenya (with Jeremy Shapiro). CSAE conference, Oxford, UK
2014
The Cost of Keeping Track. New England Universities Development Conference, Boston University
Market Convergence and Equilibrium in a Kenyan Informal Settlement. Symposium on Economic Experiments in Developing Countries, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway
2013
Household Response to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Cash Transfer Program in Kenya (with Jeremy Shapiro). New England Universities Development Conference,
Harvard University
2012
The Busara Center: A Laboratory Environment for Developing Countries (with Marie Collins,
Giovanna de Giusti, Chaning Jang, Maneesh Kuruvila, Joseph Muiruri Njoroge, and James
Vancel). Symposium on Economic Experiments in Developing Countries, University of California Berkeley.
2012
Poverty Raises Levels of the Stress Hormone Cortisol: Evidence from Weather Shocks in Kenya
(with Matthieu Chemin and Joost de Laat). New England Universities Development Conference, Dartmouth College
2007
Frequency-based categorization of complex visual objects (with Chris I. Baker and Nancy Kanwisher). Journal of Vision 7, 210a. Vision Sciences Society Conference.
2005
Greater Sensitivity to Convexities than Concavities in Human Lateral Occipital Complex (with
Chris I. Baker and Nancy Kanwisher). Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting.
2005
Greater Sensitivity to Convexities than Concavities in Human Lateral Occipital Complex (with
Chris I. Baker and Nancy Kanwisher). Journal of Vision 5, 904a. Vision Science Society Conference.
2002
Express saccades: the conditions under which they are generated and the brain structures
involved (with Peter Schiller, Geoørey Kendall, Warren Slocum, and Andreas Tolias). Journal
of Vision 2, 174a. Vision Science Society Conference.
4
Invited Seminars (past three years)
Scheduled UC Berkeley (Economics); Princeton University (Economics); University of Oxford (Economics);
National Advisory Council on Aging (NIH, Bethesda, MD)
2014
Harvard University (Economics); Dartmouth College (Economics); University of California,
Berkeley (Agricultural and Resource Economics); University of Bonn (Economics); Stockholm
University (IIES); Warwick University (Economics); Harvard University (Kennedy School of
Government); Georgetown University (Economics); University of Michigan (Economics); McGill
University (Economics); UCSD (Economics); Harvard University (School of Public Health);
University of California, Berkeley (Social Welfare); University of Pennsylvania (Psychology);
Princeton University (Health & Wellbeing Seminar); Northwestern University (Buffett Center
for International and Comparative Studies); University of Southern California (Economics);
University College London (Psychology); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Brain & Cognitive Sciences); Princeton University (Psychology & Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs); International Economic Association World Congress, Amman, Jordan
(invited panel); National Institutes of Health (Science of Behavior Change); University of
Chicago (Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Global Working Group); Microfinance
Club of New York (invited panel); First African Behavioral Economics Symposium, Naiorbi
(keynote lecture)
2013
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Economics); University of Chicago (Booth School of
Business); Cornell University (Psychology); Yale University (Public Health); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Brain & Cognitive Sciences); World Bank (Research Group), Norwegian
School of Economics (Economics)
2012
NYU Abu Dhabi; National Institutes of Health (Science of Behavior Change); University of
Dusseldorf (Psychology); Innovations for Poverty Action; Harvard University (Neuroeconomics
Working Group); Harvard University (Decision Science Lab)
Workshops
2010
Russell Sage Summer Institute in Behavioral Economics (Trento, Italy)
2013
White House Meeting: Psychological Science and Behavioral Economics in the Service of Public Policy (Washington, DC)
Teaching
2015
NYU Abu Dhabi (Winter Experimental Social Sciences Institute)
Strathmore Business School (Nairobi, Kenya): Econometrics of Program Evaluation (graduate
level)
Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs: Psychology
of Poverty (seminar)
2014
Princeton University, Department of Psychology: Psychology of Poverty (seminar)
2013
Jameel Poverty Action Lab, MIT: Executive Training (White House, Washington, DC)
2012
Jameel Poverty Action Lab, MIT: Executive Training (Kampala, Uganda)
2010
University of Zurich: Graduate Seminar, Behavioral & Experimental Economics
5
2010
University of Zurich: TA for Prof. Ernst Fehr & Charles Efferson, PhD, Behavioral Economics
2006
Harvard University: Senior Workshop Leader (Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative)
2004
Sanayee Foundation, Kabul: Course (20 hours), Monitoring and Evaluation of Development
Projects
2003
German Student Academy (DSA): Course (50 hours), Visual Neuroscience
Refereeing
Economics: American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Development Economics, American Economic Journal: Applied, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
Psychology: Science, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, Journal of Neuroscience, Neuroimage, Current Biology, Proc Roy Soc B, PNAS, Consciousness & Cognition, Experimental Brain Research,
Neuroscience Letters
Advising
Undergraduate students: Miriam Klein (Saarbrucken/Oxford), Emily Zhao (RSI/MIT), Minjeong Ahn
(MIT), Lauren Fishkin (MIT), Monica Hu (MIT), Nuné Lemaire (MIT), Lauren McClain (RSI/MIT), Joyce
Chen (MIT), Julia Nickel (TU Karlsruhe/MIT), Roni Madar (Zurich), Christoph Vonwiller (Zurich), Maayke
Seinstra (Amsterdam), Maneesh Kuruvila (St. Andrews), Noémie Zurlinden (Bern), Colton Jang (Yale),
Yaniv Sapir (Princeton), Fred Shaykis (Princeton)
Graduate students: Alain Kamm (Zurich), Florian Bosshart (Zurich), Deborah Kistler (Zurich), Linda
Kleppin (Dusseldorf), Michala Riis-Vestergaard (Copenhagen/Princeton)
Postdocs: Chaning Jang (Princeton)
Media
The Economist, The New York Times, Forbes, Businessweek, AllAfrica.com, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, NPR Morning Edition, NPR Planet Money, International Herald Tribune, Huffington Post, El
Pais (Spain), Suddeutsche (Germany), Handeslzeitung (Switzerland), arte TV (Germany/France), Freakonomics Blog, Marginal Revolution Blog
6
!
email:&[email protected]&|&telephone:&646.327.1885&
7518&Fletcher&Bay&Rd.&
Bainbridge&Is,&WA&98110&
Jeremy&P.&Shapiro&
&
&
Experience&
&
Associate&Research&Scholar&
Princeton&University&
July!2014!!*!July,!2015!
Princeton,!NJ&
President&
Busara&Center&for&Behavioral&Economics&
June!2014!!*!present!
Princeton,!NJ!|!Nairobi,!Kenya&
&
• Principal&Investigator&on&research&in&development&economics,&behavioral&economics&and&psychology&
• Design&and&manage&research&protocols&and&impact&evaluations&
• Draft&and&disseminate&academic&and&policy&reports&&
• President&and&Director&of&center&supporting&behavioral&economics&research&in&the&developing&world&
• Design,&manage&and&analyze&novel&research&in&behavioral&economics&
• Develop& strategy& for& center& serving& multiple& academic& institutions,& multilateral& organizations& and&
notVforVprofit&organizations&with&behavioral&research&services&and&consulting&
• Worked&with&client&teams&in&financial&services,&tech,&media&and&the&social&sector;&managed&teams&of&
Engagement&Manager&
McKinsey&&&Company&
January!2012!–!May!2014!!!
New!York,!NY!|!San!Francisco,!CA!&
CoVFounder&and&Director&
GiveDirectly&
June!2009!–!September!2012&
New!York,!NY!|!Kenya!
&
Postdoctoral&Associate&
Yale&University&
September!2009!–!January!2011!&
New!Haven,!CT!!
&
Instructor&
Massachusetts&Institute&of&Technology&
Fall!2008&
Cambridge,!MA!
Consultant&
The&World&Bank&
December!2008!–!June!2009!!
Cambridge,!MA!|!Ahmedabad,!India&
Research&Analyst&
RCF&Economic&Consulting&
2004!–!2005!!
Chicago,!IL&
Summer&Intern&
Morgan&Stanley&
Summer!2004!&
New!York,!NY!
&
Education&
• Developed&videoVbased&financial&literacy&education&materials&targeted&at&lowVincome&households&
• Managed&relationship&with&a&microfinance&institution&in&Ahmedabad,&India&to&pilot&financial&literacy&
education&
• &Designed& impact& evaluation& to& assess& effects& of& financial& literacy& among& low& income& microfinance&
clients&and&managed&research&team&&
• Constructed& real& estate& market& forecasting& model& for& the& Chicago& area,& calibrated& using& historical&
&
data&to&predict&short&run&population&and&housing&construction&trends&
• Contributed&to&design&and&development&of&a&novel&warrant&linked&to&employee&stock&options&which&
was&later&launched&in&financial&markets,&including&stochastic&modeling&of&option&exercise&and&auction&
mechanism&design&
• Priced&convertible&bonds&and&developed&client&presentations&
&
Massachusetts&Institute&of&Technology!
Cambridge,!MA!
University&of&Chicago&
Chicago,!IL!
2V4& Associates;& contributed& to& engagement& planning& and& conducted& novel& analysis& to& inform&
recommendations&to&clients&
• Led&market&research&effort&to&inform&design&of&a&novel&insurance&product&
• Conducted& lean& operations& diagnostic& and& developed& recommendations& for& improving& service&
operations&in&top&5&financial&services&company&
• Contributed& analysis& and& recommendations& to& multiple& strategy& development& efforts,& risk&
management&diagnostics,&organizational&design&efforts&and&M&A&assessments&&
• CoVfounder& of& NGO& providing& direct,& unconditional& cash& transfers& to& impoverished& households& in&
developing&countries&
• Developed&organizational&strategy&for&fundraising,&publicity&and&operations&
• Established&GiveDirectly’s&field&operations&in&2011,&including&legal&incorporation,&financial&reporting,&
developing&operational&protocols,&recruiting&and&managing&operations&team&in&Kenya&
• Designed,&managed&and&authored&impact&evaluation&to&assess&effects&of&unconditional&cash&transfers&
• Conducted&independent&and&joint&research&on&topics&in&development&economics,&including&financial&
education,&environmental&economics&and&microfinance&
• &Managed& largeVscale& randomized& evaluations& of& development& interventions& in& India,& Peru,& South&
Africa&and&the&Philippines,&including&survey&design,&data&management,&research&team&management&
and&data&analysis&
• Taught&undergraduate&microeconomics&course&(Introductory&Microeconomics,&MIT&course&14.01)&&
• Developed& and& delivered& lectures,& wrote& class& exercises& and& exams& and& facilitated& student&
evaluations&
&
PhD,&Economics,&September&2009&
Primary!Fields:!Development!Economics,!Econometrics!!
Secondary!Fields:!Financial!Economics,!Economic!History!
BA,&Economics,&June&2004&
&
&
&
Selected&Other&
Language&
Computer&&
Honors&
and&
Awards&&
&
English&(native)&|&Spanish&(proficient)!
Stata&(highly&proficient)&|&Python&(conversant)&
Foreign&Policy&Leading&100&Global&Thinker&(2013)&
National&Science&Foundation&Graduate&Research&Fellowship&(2005V2008)&
Presidential&Scholar&(MIT&2005)&&
Phi&Beta&Kappa&(University&of&Chicago&2004)&
&
!
&
&
&
&
Jeremy&P.&Shapiro&
email:&[email protected]&|&telephone:&646.327.1885&
7518&Fletcher&Bay&Rd&&
Bainbridge&Island,&WA&98110&
&
&
&
&
&
Published&Research&
“A&multifaceted&program&causes&lasting&progress&for&the&very&poor:&Evidence&from&six&countries.”&Science!(2015)!with!Abhijit!Banerjee,!Esther!
Duflo,!Nathanael!Goldberg,!Dean!Karlan,!Robert!Osei,!William!Parienté,!Bram!Thuysbaert,!Christopher!Udry&
“(Ineffective)&Messages&to&Encourage&Recycling:&Evidence&from&a&Randomized&Evaluation&in&Peru.”&The!World!Bank!Economic!Review!(2013)!
with!Alberto!Chong,!Dean!Karlan!and!Jonathan!Zinman&
“Liability&Structure&in&SmallVScale&Finance:&Evidence&from&a&Natural&Experiment”!The!World!Bank!Economic!Review&(2012)&with!Bilal!Zia,!Fenella!
Carpena!and!Shawn!Cole&&
“Development&Connections:&Unveiling&the&Impact&of&New&Information&Technologies”&Inter*American!Development!Bank!(May,&2011)&
contributing!author!with!Beniamino!Savonitto&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Working&Papers&
“Welfare&Effects&of&Unconditional&Cash&Transfers:&Evidence&from&a&Randomized&Control&Trial&in&Kenya”&with!Johannes!Haushofer&(2013)&
Featured&in:&Businessweek,&The&Chronicle&of&Philanthropy,&the&Economist,&Forbes,&The&New&York&Times&Economix&blog,&The&New&York&Times&
editorial&blog,&NPR&Morning&Edition,&NPR&Planet&Money&
“The&Social&Cost&of&Randomization:&Evidence&from&Field&and&Lab”&with!Johannes!Haushofer&(2013)&
“Unpacking&the&Causal&Chain&of&Financial&Literacy”&with%Bilal%Zia,%Fenella%Carpena%and%Shawn%Cole&(2011)&
“Targeting&the&HardVCore&Poor:&An&Impact&Assessment”&with!Abhijit!Banerjee,!Esther!Duflo!and!Raghabendra!Chattopadhyay&(2010)&
"Discounting&for&You,&Me&and&We:&Time&Preference&in&Groups&and&Pairs"&(2010)&
“Identifying&Constraints&to&Mango&Production&for&SmallVScale&Farmers&in&the&Philippines:&A&feasibility&study”&with!Dean!Karlan!and!Jonathan!
Zinman!(2010)&
"The&Fruits&of&Usury:&Interest&Rate&Regulation&and&Agricultural&Sector&Development&in&United&States&History"&(2009)&
“Weather&Insurance&and&Investment&Choice”&(2009)&
“Targeting&Efficiency:&How&well&can&we&identify&the&poor?”&with!Abhijit!Banerjee,!Esther!Duflo!and!Raghabendra!Chattopadhyay&(2008)&
“Evaluating&the&Effect&of&Financial&Literacy&Workshops&for&Migrant&Mineworkers&in&South&Africa”&with!Shawn!Cole!and!Kartini!Shastry&&
&
&
&
NonVacademic&writing&&
“Does&Money&Buy&Happiness?&A&new&answer&to&an&old&question”&(January,&2015)&
Society&for&Personality&and&Social&Psychology&Character&and&Context&blog&
http://www.spspblog.org/does*money*buy*happiness*a*new*answer*to*an*old*question/&
“More&than&money:&How&cash&transfers&can&transform&international&development”&(November,&2014)&
World&Bank&Let’s&Talk&Development&blog&
http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/more*money*how*cash*transfers*can*transform*international*development&
“Cash&Transfers,&Prejudice&and&Mental&Health”&(May,&2014)&
next&billion&
http://nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=3884&&
“Broadening&the&Aperture&of&Measurement”&(March,&2014)&
Stanford&Social&Innovation&Review&
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/broadening_the_aperture_of_measurement&
&
&
Presentations&and&Seminars&
World&Bank:&Trade&Up&and&Compete&Conference&
Istanbul,!Turkey:!!May,!2015,!Invited!Speaker&
!
Woodrow&Wilson&School,&Princeton&University&
Princeton,!NJ:!!February,!2015,!Invited!Speaker!&
Strathmore&Business&School:&Masters&in&Public&Policy&Program&
Nairobi,!Kenya:!!January,!2015,!Guest!Instructor&
World&Bank:&DIME&Seminar&
Washington!D.C.:!!September,!2014,!Invited!Speaker!
Department&for&International&Development&(DfID)&
London,!UK:!July,!2014,!Invited!Speaker&
Twitter&
San!Francisco,!CA:!May,!2014,!Invited!Speaker&
Gates&Foundation&MLE&Learning&Seminar&
Seattle,!Washington:!April,!2014,!Invited!Speaker&
“Microcredit&for&the&Poor:&Do&we&need&a&Reassessment?”&&
World!Bank!Washington!DC:!May,!2011,!Invited!Speaker&
Harvard/MIT&Development&Economics&Seminar&
Cambridge,!MA:!!April,!2011,!Invited!Speaker!
BRACVIGCVIIG&Entrepreneurship&and&Development&Conference&
Dhaka,!Bangladesh:!!March,!2011,!Invited!Speaker!
“Microfinance:&Translating&Research&into&Practice”&College&of&Agricultural&Banking&and&Center&for&Microfinance&at&IFMR&Seminar&
Pune,!India:!!January,!2011,!Invited!Speaker&
Microfinance&Impact&and&Innovation&Conference&&
New!York:!October,!2010,!Invited!Speaker!
Northeast&Universities&Development&Consortium&(NEUDC)&Conference&&
Boston:!November,!2010!!
“Conference&on&Weather&Insurance:&Risk&Mitigation&in&Agriculture”&Center&for&Microfinance&at&IFMR&
Ahmedabad,!India:!August,!2009,!Invited!Speaker!
Northeast&Universities&Development&Consortium&(NEUDC)&Conference&&
Boston:!November,!2009!!
Center&for&Microfinance&at&IFMR&Seminar&
Chennai,!India:!!January,!2008,!Invited!Speaker!
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Professional&activities&
Journal&
Referee&
American&Economic&Journal:&Applied&Economics,&Journal&of&Development&Economics,!The&B.E.&Journal&of&Economic&Analysis&&&
Policy,&American&Journal&of&Agricultural&Economics,!Journal&of&the&European&Economic&Association,&Economic&Development&and&
Cultural&Change&