Studies on Understanding Individual Willingness to Disclose Genetic Information to Public and Private Stakeholders

While technologies for genetic sequencing have increased the promise of personalized medicine, they simultaneously pose threats to personal privacy. The public’s desire to protect itself from unauthorized access to information may limit the uses of this valuable resource. To date, there is limited understanding about the public’s attitudes toward the regulation and sharing of such information. We sought to understand the drivers of individuals’ decisions to disclose genetic information to a third party in a setting where disclosure potentially creates both private and social benefits, but also carries the risk of potential misuse of private information. We conducted two separate but related studies. First, we administered surveys to college students and parents, to determine individual attitudes toward and inter-generational influences on the disclosure decision. Second, we conducted a game-theory based experiment that assessed how participants’ decisions to disclose genetic information are influenced by societal and health factors. Key survey findings indicate that concerns about genetic information privacy negatively impact the likelihood of disclosure while the perceived benefits of disclosure and trust in the institution receiving the information have a positive influence. The experiment results also show that the risk of discrimination negatively affects the likelihood of disclosure, while the positive impact that disclosure has on the probability of finding a cure and the presence of a monetary incentive to disclose, increase the likelihood. We also study the determinants of individuals’ decision to be informed of findings about their health, and how information about health status is used for financial decisions.

The Effect of Psychological Distance on Willingness to Engage in Ideologically Based Violence

Research on the cognitive and decision-making processes of individuals who choose to engage in ideologically based violence is vital. Our research examines how abstract and concrete construal mindsets affect likelihood to engage in ideologically based violence. Construal Level Theory (CLT) states that an abstract mindset (high-level construal), as opposed to a concrete mindset (low-level construal), is associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in goal-oriented, value-motivated behaviors. Assuming that ideologically based violence is goal-oriented, we hypothesized that high-level construal should result in an increased likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. In the pilot study we developed and tested 24 vignettes covering controversial topics and assessed them on features such as relatability, emotional impact, and capacity to elicit a violent reaction. The ten most impactful vignettes were selected for use in the primary investigations. The two primary investigations examined the effect of high- and low-level construal manipulations on self-reported likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. Self-reported willingness was measured through an ideological violence assessment. Data trends implied that participants were engaged in the study, as they reported a higher willingness to engage in ideologically based violence when they had a higher passion for the vignette's social issue topic. Our results did not indicate a significant relationship between construal manipulations and level of passion for a topic.

Using Quantitative Methods to Explore Political Leverage, Trade Policy, and Food Security: A Case Study of the Middle East

This dissertation explores why some states consistently secure food imports at prices higher than the world market price, thereby exacerbating food insecurity domestically. I challenge the idea that free market economics alone can explain these trade behaviors, and instead argue that states take into account political considerations when engaging in food trade that results in inefficient trade. In particular, states that are dependent on imports of staple food products, like cereals, are wary of the potential strategic value of these goods to exporters. I argue that this consideration, combined with the importing state’s ability to mitigate that risk through its own forms of political or economic leverage, will shape the behavior of the importing state and contribute to its potential for food security. In addition to cross-national analyses, I use case studies of the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Jordan to demonstrate how the political tools available to these importers affect their food security. The results of my analyses suggest that when import dependent states have access to forms of political leverage, they are more likely to trade efficiently, thereby increasing their potential for food security.

ENGINEERING DIGITAL SHARING PLATFORM TO CREATE SOCIAL CONTAGION: EVIDENCE FROM LARGE SCALE RANDOMIZED FIELD EXPERIMENTS

Peer-to-peer information sharing has fundamentally changed customer decision-making process. Recent developments in information technologies have enabled digital sharing platforms to influence various granular aspects of the information sharing process. Despite the growing importance of digital information sharing, little research has examined the optimal design choices for a platform seeking to maximize returns from information sharing. My dissertation seeks to fill this gap. Specifically, I study novel interventions that can be implemented by the platform at different stages of the information sharing. In collaboration with a leading for-profit platform and a non-profit platform, I conduct three large-scale field experiments to causally identify the impact of these interventions on customers’ sharing behaviors as well as the sharing outcomes. The first essay examines whether and how a firm can enhance social contagion by simply varying the message shared by customers with their friends. Using a large randomized field experiment, I find that i) adding only information about the sender’s purchase status increases the likelihood of recipients’ purchase; ii) adding only information about referral reward increases recipients’ follow-up referrals; and iii) adding information about both the sender’s purchase as well as the referral rewards increases neither the likelihood of purchase nor follow-up referrals. I then discuss the underlying mechanisms. The second essay studies whether and how a firm can design unconditional incentive to engage customers who already reveal willingness to share. I conduct a field experiment to examine the impact of incentive design on sender’s purchase as well as further referral behavior. I find evidence that incentive structure has a significant, but interestingly opposing, impact on both outcomes. The results also provide insights about senders’ motives in sharing. The third essay examines whether and how a non-profit platform can use mobile messaging to leverage recipients’ social ties to encourage blood donation. I design a large field experiment to causally identify the impact of different types of information and incentives on donor’s self-donation and group donation behavior. My results show that non-profits can stimulate group effect and increase blood donation, but only with group reward. Such group reward works by motivating a different donor population. In summary, the findings from the three studies will offer valuable insights for platforms and social enterprises on how to engineer digital platforms to create social contagion. The rich data from randomized experiments and complementary sources (archive and survey) also allows me to test the underlying mechanism at work. In this way, my dissertation provides both managerial implication and theoretical contribution to the phenomenon of peer-to-peer information sharing.

TAKING THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SELLER AND A BUYER: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRICE ELICITATION AND PRICE FRAMING

This dissertation consists of two essays which investigate how assuming the role of a seller or a buyer affects valuations in a price elicitation task (essay I) and how different presentations of an equivalent price affect evaluations when a consumer plays the dual roles of a buyer and a seller in transactions involving trade-ins (essay II). Sellers’ willingness to accept (WTA) to give up a good is typically higher than buyers' willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain the good. Essay I proposes that valuation processes of sellers and buyers are guided by a motivational orientation of “getting the best.” For a seller (buyer) indicating WTA (WTP), getting the best implies receiving as much as possible to give up a specific good (giving up as little as possible to get the specific good). Results of six studies suggest that the WTA-WTP elicitation task activates different directional goals, leading to the WTA-WTP disparity. The different directional goals lead sellers and buyers to focus on different aspects and bias their cognitive reasoning and interpretation of information. By connecting the valuation process to the general motivation of getting the best, this research provides a unifying framework to explain the disparate interpretations of the WTA-WTP disparity. Many new purchases and replacement decisions involve consumers’ trading in their old products. In such transactions, the overall exchange may be priced either as separate transactions (partitioned) with price tags for the payment and the receipt or as a single net price (consolidated) which takes into account the value of the trade-in. Essay II examines whether consumers prefer a partitioned price versus a consolidated price presentation. The findings suggest that when consumers are trading in a product which has a low value relative to the price of a new product, they prefer a consolidated price. In contrast, when trading in a product which has high value, they prefer a partitioned price. The results suggest that consumers use the price of the new product as an anchor to evaluate the trade-in value, and the perception of the trade-in value influences the overall evaluation especially when the transaction is partitioned.