Tag: psychology

Sydney Scott, assistant professor of marketing, has spent the last decade in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania. She earned her undergraduate degree in psychology there, followed by what she calls “a natural evolution” to a master’s and PhD in marketing at Wharton.

Scott’s dual interests in psychology and marketing have been a perfect match for studying consumer behavior. She has conducted research into consumer preferences for natural, organic products versus genetically modified products.

Scott grew up in California, but is getting acquainted with her new hometown, exploring St. Louis’ ice cream shops and trying out local delicacies like gooey butter cake.

Area of Expertise:

Consumer behavior and decision-making

Research Interests:

Morality and consumption; judgment and decision-making; preference for naturalness

Selected Publications:

  • “Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Gentically Modified Food in the United States”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Issue 3, 315-324, with Y. Inbar, P. Rozin, 2016
  • “The Price of Not Putting a Price on Love”, Judgment and Decision Making, Issue 1, 40-47, with A. McGraw, D. Davis, P. Tetlock, 2016
  • “Why Does the Cognitive Reflection Test (Sometimes) Predict Utilitarian Moral Judgment (and Other Things)?”, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Issue 3, 265-284, with J. Baron, K. Fincher, S. Metz, 2015
  • “Asymmetrical Social Mach Bands: Exaggeration of Social Identities on the More Esteemed Side of Group Borders”, Psychological Science, Issue 10, 1955-1959, with P. Rozin, H. Zickgraf, F. Ahn, H. Jiang, 2014
  • “Integrative Complexity Coding Raises Integratively Complex Issues”, Political Psychology, Issue 5, 625-634, with P. Tetlock, S. Metz, P. Suedfeld, 2014
  • “Psychological Strategies for Winning Geopolitical Forecasting Tournaments”, Psychological Science, Issue 5, 1106-1115, with B. Mellers, L. Ungar, J. Baron, J. Ramos, B. Gurcay, K. Fincher, D. Moore, P. Atanasov, S. Swift, T. Murray, E. Stone, P. Tetlock, 2014
  • “Nudge to Nobesity I: Minor Changes in Accessibility Decrease Food Intake”, Judgment and Decision Making, Issue 4, 323-332, with P. Rozin, M. Dingley, J. Urbanek, H. Jiang, M. Kaltenbach, 2011

Everyday in the workplace, colleagues actively compete for a limited amount of perks, including raises, promotions, bonuses and recognition. But new research from Washington University in St. Louis shows that, more than often than not, people fall short in determining which co-workers might be trying to edge them out on the job.

“We looked at whether people understood what other people in the workplace thought of them,” said Hillary Anger Elfenbein, professor of organizational behavior. “You tend to know who likes you. But, for negative feelings, including competitiveness, people had no clue.”

Elfenbein and her co-authors, Noah Eisenkraft from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Shirli Kopelman from the University of Michigan, ran two different studies during the course of their research, recently published in the journal Psychological Science. In the first, they surveyed salespeople at a Midwestern car dealership where competition was both normal and encouraged. The second study included surveys from more than 200 undergraduate students in 56 separate project groups. All were asked similar questions about their co-workers, and what they assumed those people thought of them. When the responses about competition were analyzed, the results were striking: While there were outliers, they completely canceled out.

In other words, co-workers have no clue about their competitive cohorts.

Hillary Anger Elfenbein

Hillary Anger Elfenbein

“Some people show their competitiveness, some people you can tell have it out for you, but others have it out for you and act like they’re your close friend,” Elfenbein said. “Those two effects wash out, and people on average have zero idea about who feels competitively toward them.”

The researchers offer two main reasons for the disconnect: First, people tend to mask outward feelings of competitiveness toward others in an effort to be polite. Also, the concept of reciprocity played a role.

“For liking, reciprocation is a good thing,” Elfenbein said. “You keep dates, you give gifts, you have shared, positive experiences. But to get the benefits of competition, such as promotions or perks, you don’t need it to be reciprocated. And when you don’t get that feeling back, it’s hard to gauge who’s truly competing against you.”

For a manager in the workplace who wants a strong and cohesive team, transparency and uncrossable lines appear to be the key in maintaining the balance, the researchers said.

“You want to promote a climate where there is friendly competition,” Elfenbein said. “At the car dealership, everybody knows they are competing against each other. Entire salaries can be based on performance. But if you create a climate where there are boundaries you don’t cross, you can make space for mutual healthy competition to be rewarded.”

As for the individual in the workplace who fears being blindsided by co-workers?

“You need to pay more attention to what people do rather than what they say,” Elfenbein said.  “When people are too polite to say something to your face, you need a good, strong network that will let you know what other people really think.”

Guest Blogger: Erika Ebsworth-Goold


You never get a second chance to make a first impression, right?
Oh, but you do, thanks to the fact that any given day is full of firsts: First day of school, first day on the job, first day back after vacation.

That’s the finding of a new study on forming impressions led by Robyn A. LeBoeuf, PhD, associate professor of marketing at Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis.

“By connecting an everyday experience to a first – even an unrelated first – you can turn that experience into a first experience,” LeBoeuf said. And there are a variety of ways to do so. For example, a person’s 17th visit to a neighborhood coffee shop is unlikely to change his or her opinion of that shop very much.

However, the study finds that when that visit is linked to an unrelated “first,” such as the first visit of the month, first visit after starting a new job, or first visit during a special promotion, a mental “reset” button is pushed, leading that visit to have a larger impact on a person’s impression, just as a true first visit would.

The study, “Forceful Phantom Firsts: Framing Experiences As Firsts Amplifies Their Influence on Judgment,” was published in the August issue of the American Marketing Association’s Journal of Marketing Research. Co-authors are Elanor F. Williams, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego and Lyle A. Brenner, PhD, of the University of Florida

“Customers may evaluate their old standby restaurant in a new light after the first dinner since they moved into a new house, or if the manager welcomes them to ‘the first dinner of the summer,” LeBoeuf said. “This may allow familiar products – and even people – a chance to make a fresh impression.”

Even an experience as fraught with peril as a dentist office visit can be seen in a new light. In one study, people read descriptions of five visits to the dentist. The fifth visit had a greater impact on impressions of the dentist when that visit was the “first” one after a presidential election (vs. when it happened “near” the election).

In another study, people read six hotel reviews, similar to those on travel websites. The final review was more influential when it was the first review of the year vs. just another review.

The findings have implications throughout the business community, particularly in reversing poor impressions of products or services – or proprietors themselves.

“Look for a positive experience, and when you find one, connect it to a first, by pointing out that it is, say, the first meeting after vacation or the first shopping trip of the season,” LeBoeuf said. “This can give you a second chance at that first impression.”

Media release from WUSTL News