Ongoing Projects
Understanding vaccine hesitancy
The literature on vaccine hesitancy—and many other controversial topics—is vast and often overwhelming. Negative attitudes toward vaccines, GMOs, and similar issues can stem from a variety of psychological factors, and each person brings a unique set of reasons to the table. Yet psychological research often “averages over” individuals, relying on methods that obscure important nuances. In this project, we’re developing a framework for capturing individual differences more precisely. Specifically, we compare traditional Likert-style ratings and factor analysis with alternative approaches such as ranking, tier lists, and max-diff methods. Our goal is to refine how we measure beliefs, opinions, and attitudes in order to better understand the diversity of reasons that underlie hesitancy and skepticism.
Status: Two data sets down, more to go
Celebrities and moral reasoning
People care deeply about moral choices — we wrestle with ethical dilemmas and agonize over what’s “right.” In this line of research, we explore how celebrities shape moral decision-making. For example, in one study, we adapted the classic trolley dilemma, but made it to where Taylor Swift is the person on the default track. We varied the number of people on the alternate track to see how participants weigh one celebrity life against several non-celebrities. More broadly, this work examines how celebrity worship and fixation on their lifestyles can influence the values we hold and the moral decisions we make.
Status: Data ~80% collected for Study 1
Distrust in healthcare
In this line of research, we explore the many reasons people delay or avoid engaging with the healthcare system—whether that’s skipping check-ups, hesitating to visit the emergency room, or distrusting medical advice. Hesitancy can stem from frustration with bureaucracy, cost, or past negative experiences. Some people underestimate the seriousness of their symptoms or lack information about how their lifestyle affects their health. Others have valid reasons to distrust the system—including skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies and systemic inequities in care. While the healthcare industry is far from perfect, unnecessary suffering and preventable outcomes often result when people disengage from credentialed providers. These studies aim to better understand the diverse factors driving healthcare hesitancy.
Status: One study down. More needed.
How people interpret vague probability phrases like "in some rare cases" or "there is a chance"
Much of the research on judgment and decision-making focuses on how people respond to numerical probabilities—such as a “10% chance of side effects” or “1 in 10 chance of success.” But in everyday conversations, uncertainty is often expressed verbally: “There’s always a chance,” or “Sometimes people don’t react well to this medicine.” In these studies, we examine how people interpret and use verbal expressions of probability in decision-making. Our goal is to better understand how real-world communication shapes judgments when numbers aren’t explicitly provided.
Status: A few pilot studies completed.
How people interpret vague probability phrases like "in some rare cases" or "there is a chance"
Much of the research on judgment and decision-making focuses on how people respond to numerical probabilities—such as a “10% chance of side effects” or “1 in 10 chance of success.” But in everyday conversations, uncertainty is often expressed verbally: “There’s always a chance,” or “Sometimes people don’t react well to this medicine.” In these studies, we examine how people interpret and use verbal expressions of probability in decision-making. Our goal is to better understand how real-world communication shapes judgments when numbers aren’t explicitly provided.
Status: One study down. More needed.