September 22, 2013 | Read Time: 5 minutes
In their new book, “The Why Axis,” the economists Uri Gneezy (far right) and John List pose questions about big social challenges, explain how they conducted experiments to figure out what’s behind the problems, and discuss what their findings mean for nonprofits, governments, and others.
Why are women less economically successful than men?
What the economists wanted to learn: Whether genetics or socialization causes women to avoid competing in ways that would help them advance in both pay and position.
How they pursued the answer: They went to remote regions of Africa and India to study two tribes, one in which men dominated and the other in which women did.
With each tribe, they asked people to play a game in which the winners were offered a fixed amount as a prize or a much bigger sum if they played against and beat a competitor.
In Africa, the Maasai tribesmen—who one village woman said “treat us like donkeys”—were twice as likely as the women to choose to compete.
In India, Khasi tribe members, whose men hold such subservient roles to women that they’ve even started a movement to protest being treated like “breeding bulls and babysitters,” the economists write, 54 percent of women chose to play the competitive version of the game, but less than 40 percent of the men did.
What the findings mean for nonprofits and others: Put money into early childhood education and same-sex schools to help socialize women to be more assertive, the economists suggest.
Is discrimination caused by hatred?
What the economists wanted to learn: Whether people show bias toward others out of innate dislike or because they want to advance economic or other interests.
How they pursued the answer: The researchers recruited a group of men, half of them with disabilities, to visit auto-repair shops with a car that needed fixing. The men with disabilities used a wheelchair and specially equipped vehicles. The able-bodied men then drove the same vehicles to another repair shop and asked for a quote.
“On average, the disabled men received price quotes that were 30 percent higher,” the economists write. “Ouch. But why?”
Sensing that mechanics might think they could charge the men with disabilities more because it would be harder for them to get around and compare prices, the economists sent another group of men, some of them with disabilities, to collect new price quotes, but this time each man told the mechanics: “I am getting three price quotes today.”
This time, the two groups got identical quotes.
What the findings mean for nonprofits and others: “Policy makers should remember that anti-discrimination laws have been written as if the problem was hatred or bigotry,” Mr. List says. Instead, he adds, discrimination today is more likely motivated by economic factors rather than racist, sexist, or ageist prejudices.
What motivates people to exercise and stay healthy?
What the economists wanted to learn: Whether financial incentives can get people to start exercising and keep doing so even after they no longer get a reward.
How they pursued the answer: By offering people $100 if they worked out eight times during one month, the economists attracted more gymgoers than they did simply by encouraging them to exercise. Even after the payments stopped, many people who received them realized they enjoyed the experience and kept exercising, double the number who got only encouragement.
What the findings mean for nonprofits and others: Short-term incentives can make a long-term difference. The money, the economists write, “seemed to help these people ‘get over the hump’ of exercising regularly.”
What helps low-income students perform better on standardized tests?
What the economists wanted to learn: What would motivate disadvantaged kids to perform as well as more-advantaged youngsters on exams.
How they pursued the answer: They divided 7,000 students into five groups: Kids in the first group were given $20 right before a standardized test and told the money would be taken away if their scores were not better than their previous ones. The second group was told they’d get $20 immediately after the test if their scores improved, while the third group was informed that they would receive $20 one month after the test if they did better. A fourth group was given a modest trophy if their scores improved, and a fifth group was not offered any incentive except encouragement to do better. All of the incentives worked, but students who did best were those who were warned that the $20 would be taken away.
What the findings mean for nonprofits and others: “Kids really do respond to immediate rewards, and the threat of taking away that reward is more powerful than paying it later,” Mr. Gneezy and Mr. List write.
What works to reduce school shootings?
What the economists wanted to learn: What incentives work best to persuade young people to stop violence, and can adult mentors make a difference?
How they pursued the answer: Working with the head of Chicago’s public schools, the economists offered a private concert with the rapper Kanye West to the school that did the best job of reducing violent incidents among students (both on and off campus) and lifting attendance during the academic year.
In another set of experiments, they identified students most likely to commit or be the victim of violence—all males—and paired them with adult male mentors.
Because school shootings usually occur in the hours immediately before and after classes start, the mentors took the students to school and picked them up afterward. Mentors were also on call every hour of the day.
What the findings mean for nonprofits and others: In the competition among schools, “the incentive worked like magic,” the economists write. At the winning school, Farragut High School, violent incidents dropped by 40 percent, but all of the schools showed improvement in increasing attendance and reducing violence, changes that have endured. The mentors also helped, and although it cost $15,000 a student for each one, the economists note that is a small sum compared with the cost of putting people convicted of shootings in prison. Still, the mentors were not able to help every young man in the study. “Many children, facing tremendous odds in their lives, simply give up and drop out,” the economists write. “We need to continue to learn what works for these kids.”
