The boomerang effect of psychological interventions

Research has found that teaching people about psychological biases can help counteract biased behavior. On the other hand, due to the innate need for preservation of a positive self-image, it is likely that teaching people about biases they hold, may cause a boomerang effect in cases where being associated with a specific bias implies negative social connotations. In the three studies below we examine situations in which psychological bias implies negatively associated behavior, and show that teaching people about bias in those contexts can be counterproductive.     

The Palestinian minority in Israel: when common core curriculum in education meets conflicting national narratives

This paper starts with a brief survey of how the Israeli education system has handled the issue of the existence of an Arab community in Israel’s collective identity, and how this was affected by reforms that were initiated in the education system throughout the years. The second part of the paper examines various possibilities regarding how the inclusion of the Arab collective identity can best be accommodated in the education system and its curricula.     

CAPITAL CONTROLS AND DEVIATIONS FROM PROPOSED INTEREST RATE PARITY; MEXICO 1982

An intervention analysis of the Mexican capital control policy of August 1982 shows the policy to have a negative, but temporary, impact on the Mexican deviation from interest rate parity. Previous studies concerning the impact of capital control inteventions have predicted positive effects of capital control policies. These stem from the effective tax capital controls place on foreign capital inflows. When capital controls are also designed to restrict domestic capital outflows, however, their net effect becomes an empirical, rather than theoretical, question.     

Testing Multiple Forecasters

We consider a cross‐calibration test of predictions by multiple potential experts in a stochastic environment. This test checks whether each expert is calibrated conditional on the predictions made by other experts. We show that this test is good in the sense that a true expert—one informed of the true distribution of the process—is guaranteed to pass the test no matter what the other potential experts do, and false experts will fail the test on all but a small (category I) set of true distributions. Furthermore, even when there is no true expert present, a test similar to cross‐calibration cannot be simultaneously manipulated by multiple false experts, but at the cost of failing some true experts.     

Strategic Cognition of Operations Executives

The nature of operations executives’ strategic cognition, as the antecedent to their choices about operations strategy, remains underexplored in the literature. This mixed‐methods study examines executives’ thinking about supply chain strategy through the lens of managerial cognition. Our qualitative study at a pharmaceutical distributor, which examined 25 executives’ outlook on the future of the turbulent U.S. healthcare sector and their suggestions for adapting the company's supply chain strategy to that future, suggests that an executive's strategic cognition can be defined by its regulatory focus—whether the executive envisions the future environment in terms of opportunities or threats—and the level of optimism in regards to the envisioned future. We propose a typology that predicts the strategic choices of operations executives based on four types of cognition: pioneering, pushing, protective, and provocative. It describes whether an executive's strategic choices target traditional or novel sources of revenue, and if they seek to influence either the firm's structure and practices or its environment. Our empirical test of the typology using quantitative data collected in a survey of senior operations executives supports the study's propositions associating three of the four types of cognition with their respective preferred strategic choices.