IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncovering noisy social signals: Using optimization methods from experimental physics to study social phenomena

Author

Listed:
  • Maurits Kaptein
  • Robin van Emden
  • Davide Iannuzzi

Abstract

Due to the ubiquitous presence of treatment heterogeneity, measurement error, and contextual confounders, numerous social phenomena are hard to study. Precise control of treatment variables and possible confounders is often key to the success of studies in the social sciences, yet often proves out of the realm of control of the experimenter. To amend this situation we propose a novel approach coined “lock-in feedback” which is based on a method that is routinely used in high-precision physics experiments to extract small signals out of a noisy environment. Here, we adapt the method to noisy social signals in multiple dimensions and evaluate it by studying an inherently noisy topic: the perception of (subjective) beauty. We show that the lock-in feedback approach allows one to select optimal treatment levels despite the presence of considerable noise. Furthermore, through the introduction of an external contextual shock we demonstrate that we can find relationships between noisy variables that were hitherto unknown. We therefore argue that lock-in methods may provide a valuable addition to the social scientist’s experimental toolbox and we explicitly discuss a number of future applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Maurits Kaptein & Robin van Emden & Davide Iannuzzi, 2017. "Uncovering noisy social signals: Using optimization methods from experimental physics to study social phenomena," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174182
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174182
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174182&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174182?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodore T. Allen & Liyang Yu & John Schmitz, 2003. "An experimental design criterion for minimizing meta‐model prediction errors applied to die casting process design," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 52(1), pages 103-117, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Kaptein, Maurits & Eckles, Dean, 2012. "Heterogeneity in the Effects of Online Persuasion," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 176-188.
    4. Hinz, Oliver & Hann, Il-Horn & Spann, Martin, 2011. "Price Discrimination in E-Commerce? An Examination of Dynamic Pricing in Name-Your-Own-Price Markets Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ)," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 56546, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Maurits C Kaptein & Robin Van Emden & Davide Iannuzzi, 2016. "Tracking the decoy: maximizing the decoy effect through sequential experimentation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    3. Oliver Hinz & Jochen Eckert, 2010. "The Impact of Search and Recommendation Systems on Sales in Electronic Commerce," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(2), pages 67-77, April.
    4. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    7. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    8. Dan Ariely & Kristina Shampan'er, 2006. "How small is zero price? : the true value of free products," Working Papers 06-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    9. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    10. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg D. Granic, 2023. "Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 499-521, July.
    11. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.
    12. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    13. Yu, Jun & Meng, Xiran & Wang, Yaping, 2023. "Optimal designs for semi-parametric dose-response models under random contamination," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Zeng, Shouzhen & Zhou, Jiamin & Zhang, Chonghui & Merigó, José M., 2022. "Intuitionistic fuzzy social network hybrid MCDM model for an assessment of digital reforms of manufacturing industry in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Giarlotta, Alfio & Petralia, Angelo & Watson, Stephen, 2023. "Context-sensitive rationality: Choice by salience," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    17. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2010. "Rational indecisive choice," MPRA Paper 25481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," CEPR Discussion Papers 12407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Martin Spann & Oliver Hinz & Vandana Ramachandran, 2013. "Business and Information Systems Engineering and Marketing," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(3), pages 127-128, June.
    20. Zhang, Tao & Zhang, David, 2007. "Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 912-922, August.
    21. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.