John Timmer

You are currently browsing articles tagged John Timmer.

The human mind is really good at justification and rationalization and delaying responsibility, so it’s not surprising that a cleverly designed recent study reveals that we’re much more likely to answer printed questions honestly when we’re asked to sign the form at the beginning rather than the end. From John Timmer at Ars Technica:

“Their hypothesis was that ‘signing one’s name before reporting information (rather than at the end) makes morality accessible right before it is most needed, which will consequently promote honest reporting.’

To test this proposal, they designed a series of forms that required self reporting of personal information, either involving performance on a math quiz where higher scores meant higher rewards, or the reimbursable travel expenses involved in getting to the study’s location. The only difference among the forms? Some did not ask for a signature, some put the signature on top, and some placed it in its traditional location, at the end.

In the case of the math quiz, the researchers actually tracked how well the participants had performed. With the signature at the end, a full 79 percent of the participants cheated. Somewhat fewer cheated when no signature was required, though the difference was not statistically significant. But when the signature was required on top, only 37 percent cheated—less than half the rate seen in the signature-at-bottom group.”

Tags:

Baseball umpires, 1915.

Umpiring baseball apparently comes with a degree of ethnic bias, as millions of pitch calls were analyzed and umpires displayed a persistent tendency to call pitches more favorably for members of their own ethnic group. Considering how few African-American baseball players there currently are and the lack of Latin American umpires, I wonder if that sample size had an effect on the study. An excerpt from an article on Ars Technica by John Timmer:

“Several studies have shown that sporting officials have a tendency to exhibit subtle biases in favor of members of their own ethnic group, So, an umpire that’s white might be expected to favor a white pitcher, giving him more favorable calls when pitches are at the edge of the strike zone. This sort of bias might be expected to be subtle, but the research has the sort of statistical power that comes from large numbers: a record of over 3.5 million pitches, and what their outcomes were. (Here, the authors turned to ESPN.com for a pitch-by-pitch record of the game to match up with their computer data.)

After eliminating things like foul balls, swinging strikes, and intentional balls, the authors still had a very impressive collection of data to work with: 1.9 million pitches in which the umpires made a decision. Then came the real drudge work. Using sources such as About.com and web searches, the authors pieced together the ethnic origins of all the major league players and umpires involved. And then they started crunching numbers. And what they found was a subtle bias that went away when the umpires thought someone was watching them.”

••••••••••

Earl Weaver goes apeshit:

Tags: