Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Resource Type: Text
Description
Science is a formalized method for acquiring information about the world. In
recent years, the ability of science to do so has been scrutinized. Attempts to reproduce
findings in diverse fields demonstrate that many results are unreliable and do not
generalize across contexts. In response to these concerns, many proposals for reform have
emerged. Although promising, such reforms have not addressed all aspects of scientific
practice. In the social sciences, two such aspects are the diversity of study participants
and incentive structures. Most efforts to improve scientific practice focus on replicability,
but sidestep issues of generalizability. And while researchers have speculated about the
effects of incentive structures, there is little systematic study of these hypotheses. This
dissertation takes one step towards filling these gaps. Chapter 1 presents a cross-cultural
study of social discounting – the purportedly fundamental human tendency to sacrifice
more for socially-close individuals – conducted among three diverse populations (U.S.,
rural Indonesia, rural Bangladesh). This study finds no independent effect of social
distance on generosity among Indonesian and Bangladeshi participants, providing
evidence against the hypothesis that social discounting is universal. It also illustrates the
importance of studying diverse human populations for developing generalizable theories
of human nature. Chapter 2 presents a laboratory experiment with undergraduates to test
the effect of incentive structures on research accuracy, in an instantiation of the scientific
process where the key decision is how much data to collect before submitting one’s
findings. The results demonstrate that rewarding novel findings causes respondents to
make guesses with less information, thereby reducing their accuracy. Chapter 3 presents
an evolutionary agent-based model that tests the effect of competition for novel findings
on the sample size of studies that researchers conduct. This model demonstrates that
competition for novelty causes the cultural evolution of research with smaller sample
sizes and lower statistical power. However, increasing the startup costs to conducting
single studies can reduce the negative effects of competition, as can rewarding
publication of secondary findings. These combined chapters provide evidence that
aspects of current scientific practice may be detrimental to the reliability and
generalizability of research and point to potential solutions.
recent years, the ability of science to do so has been scrutinized. Attempts to reproduce
findings in diverse fields demonstrate that many results are unreliable and do not
generalize across contexts. In response to these concerns, many proposals for reform have
emerged. Although promising, such reforms have not addressed all aspects of scientific
practice. In the social sciences, two such aspects are the diversity of study participants
and incentive structures. Most efforts to improve scientific practice focus on replicability,
but sidestep issues of generalizability. And while researchers have speculated about the
effects of incentive structures, there is little systematic study of these hypotheses. This
dissertation takes one step towards filling these gaps. Chapter 1 presents a cross-cultural
study of social discounting – the purportedly fundamental human tendency to sacrifice
more for socially-close individuals – conducted among three diverse populations (U.S.,
rural Indonesia, rural Bangladesh). This study finds no independent effect of social
distance on generosity among Indonesian and Bangladeshi participants, providing
evidence against the hypothesis that social discounting is universal. It also illustrates the
importance of studying diverse human populations for developing generalizable theories
of human nature. Chapter 2 presents a laboratory experiment with undergraduates to test
the effect of incentive structures on research accuracy, in an instantiation of the scientific
process where the key decision is how much data to collect before submitting one’s
findings. The results demonstrate that rewarding novel findings causes respondents to
make guesses with less information, thereby reducing their accuracy. Chapter 3 presents
an evolutionary agent-based model that tests the effect of competition for novel findings
on the sample size of studies that researchers conduct. This model demonstrates that
competition for novelty causes the cultural evolution of research with smaller sample
sizes and lower statistical power. However, increasing the startup costs to conducting
single studies can reduce the negative effects of competition, as can rewarding
publication of secondary findings. These combined chapters provide evidence that
aspects of current scientific practice may be detrimental to the reliability and
generalizability of research and point to potential solutions.
ContributorsTiokhin, Leonid (Author) / Hruschka, Daniel J (Thesis advisor) / Morgan, Thomas JH (Thesis advisor) / Boyd, Robert (Committee member) / Frankenhuis, Willem E. (Committee member) / Bergstrom, Carl T. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This thesis explores concept of "global bioethics" in both its development as well as its current state in an effort to understand exactly where it fits into the larger field of bioethics. Further, the analysis poses specific questions regarding what it may contribute to this field and related fields, and the possibility and scope associated with the continued development of global bioethics as its own discipline. To achieve this, the piece addresses questions regarding current opinions on the subject, the authorities and their associated publications related to global bioethics, and what the aims of the subject should be given its current state. "Global Bioethics" is a term that, while seen frequently in bioethics literature, is difficult to define succinctly. While many opinions are provided on the concept, little consensus exists regarding its application and possible contributions and, in some cases, even its very possibility. Applying ethical principles of health and medicine globally is undoubtedly complicated by the cultural, social, and geographical considerations associated with understanding health and medicine in different populations, leading to a dichotomy between two schools of thought in relation to global bioethics. These two sides consist of those who think that universality of bioethics is possible whereas the opposing viewpoint holds that relativism is the key to applying ethics on a global scale. Despite the aforementioned dichotomy in addressing applications of global bioethics, this analysis shows that the goals of the subject should be more focused on contributing to ethical frameworks and valuable types of thinking related to the ethics health and medicine on a global scale. This is achieved through an exploration of bioethics in general, health as a function of society and culture, the history and development of global bioethics itself, and an exploration of pertinent global health topics. While primarily descriptive in nature, this analysis critiques some of the current discussions and purported goals surrounding global bioethics, recommending that the field focus on fostering valuable discussion and framing of issues rather than the pursuit of concrete judgments on moral issues in global health and medicine.
ContributorsRuffenach, Stephen Charles (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hruschka, Daniel J (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Evolutionary and economic theories of fertility variation argue that novel subsistence opportunities associated with market economies shape reproduction in ways that both increase parental investment per child and lower overall fertility. I use demographic and ethnographic data from Guatemala as a case study to illustrate how ethnic inequalities in accessing market opportunities have shaped demographic variation and the perceptions of parental investments. I then discuss two projects that use secondary data sets to address issues of conceptualizing and operationalizing market opportunities in national and cross-population comparative work. The first argues that social relationships are critical means of accessing market opportunities, and uses Guatemala household stocks of certain forms of relational wealth are associated with greater parental investments in education. The second focuses on a methodological issue in how common measures of wealth in comparative demographic studies conflate economic capacity with market opportunities, and how this conceptual confusion biases our interpretations of the observed links between wealth and fertility over the course of the demographic transition.
ContributorsHackman, Joseph Victor (Author) / Hruschka, Daniel J (Thesis advisor) / Maupin, Jonathan (Committee member) / Hill, Kim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019