Deborah Small

Professor Deborah Small's research interfaces psychology and economics, examining fundamental processes that underlie human decision making.

Professor Small's research has been published in toptier academic journals across Psychology and Marketing. She serves as an Associate Editor for Journal of Marketing Research and is a member of several editorial boards.

At Wharton, Professor Small was voted "Iron Prof" in 2014.  She teaches consumer behavior and Marketing for Social Impact.

She received her PhD in Psychology and Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon University and her BS from the University of Pennsylvania. She is also a member of the graduate faculty of the Psychology Department at Penn.

Shalena Srna, Alixandra Barasch, Deborah Small (Work In Progress), When Signaling Status Backfires.

Sydney Scott, Paul Rozin, Deborah Small (Under Revision), Consumers Prefer “Natural” More for Preventatives than for Curatives.

Deborah Small (Forthcoming), When Payment Undermines the Pitch: On the Persuasiveness of Pure Motives in Fundraising.

Jonathan Z. Berman, Emma E. Levine, Alixandra Barasch, Deborah Small (2015), The Braggart's Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, pp. 90104.

Abstract: People often brag about, or advertise, their good deeds to others. Seven studies investigate how bragging about prosocial behavior affects perceived generosity. The authors propose that bragging conveys information about an actor’s good deeds, leading to an attribution of generosity. However, bragging also signals a selfish motivation (a desire for credit) that undermines the attribution of generosity. Thus, bragging has a positive effect when prosocial behavior is unknown because it informs others that an actor has behaved generously. However, bragging does not help—and often hurts—when prosocial behavior is already known, because it signals a selfish motive. Additionally, the authors demonstrate that conspicuous cause marketing products have effects akin to bragging by signaling an impure motive for doing good deeds. Finally, the authors argue that bragging about prosocial behavior is unique because it undermines the precise information that the braggart is trying to convey (generosity). In contrast, bragging about personal achievements does not affect perceptions of the focal trait conveyed in the brag. These findings underscore the strategic considerations inherent in signaling altruism.

Alixandra Barasch, Emma E. Levine, Jonathan Z. Berman, Deborah Small (2014), Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in prosocial behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, pp. 393413.

Abstract: Theories that reject the existence of altruism presume that emotional benefits serve as ulterior motives for doing good deeds. These theories argue that even in the absence of material and reputational benefits, individuals reap utility from the feelings associated with doing good. In response to this normative view of altruism, this article examines the descriptive question of whether laypeople penalize emotional prosocial actors. Six studies find that emotion serves as a positive signal of moral character, despite the intrapsychic benefits associated with it. This is true when emotion motivates prosocial behavior (Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5) and when emotion is a positive outcome of prosocial behavior (i.e., “warm glow”; Studies 4, 5, and 6). Emotional actors are considered to be moral because people believe emotion provides an honest and direct signal that the actor feels a genuine concern for others. Consequently, prosocial actors who are motivated by the expectation of emotional rewards are judged differently than prosocial actors who are motivated by other benefits, such as reputational or material rewards (Study 6). These results suggest that laypeople do not view altruism as incompatible with all benefits to the self.

Jonathan Z. Berman and Deborah Small (Under Revision), Judgments of Virtue in Consumer Behavior.

Abstract: Consumers often use moral language to discuss behavior with little moral relevance. For instance, ordering fruit salad instead of chocolate cake for dessert is considered “virtuous” even though most people do not consider it a moral choice. We examine decisions between virtue and vice options and show that people judge virtuous behavior differently across intertemporal (present self/future self) and moral (self/other) decisions. We argue that for intertemporal decisions, selfcontrol primarily determines judgments of virtue: a person who resists temptation is seen as more virtuous than someone who does not feel tempted by a vice. However, for moral decisions, purity is primary: a person who resists temptation is seen as less virtuous than someone who does not feel tempted by a vice. We further show that thinking about past failures of purity increases intentions to act morally, whereas thinking about past selfcontrol failures increases intentions to help the future self.

Fern LinHealy and Deborah Small (2013), Nice guys finish last and guys in last are nice , Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4 (6), pp. 693699.

Deborah Small, Devin Pope, Michael Norton (2012), An Age Penalty in Racial Preferences , Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Jonathan Z. Berman and Deborah Small (2012), Selfinterest without Selfishness: The Hedonic Benefit of Imposed Selfinterest, Psychological Science.

Abstract: Despite common sense appeal, the link between selfinterest and happiness remains elusive. One reason why individuals may not feel satisfied with selfinterest is that they feel uneasy about sacrificing the needs of others for their own gain. We propose that externally imposing selfinterest allows individuals to enjoy selfbenefiting outcomes that are untainted by selfreproach for failing to help others. Experiment 1 finds that an imposed selfinterested option (a reward) leads to greater happiness than choosing between a selfinterested and a prosocial option (a charity donation). Experiment 2 finds that this effect is not driven by choice in general; rather, it is the specific tradeoff between benefiting the self and others that inhibits happiness gained from selfinterest. We theorize that the agency inherent in choice reduces the hedonic value of selfinterest. Experiment 3 finds support for this mechanism.

Fern Lin and Deborah Small (2012), Cheapened Altruism: Discounting prosocial behavior by friends of victims , Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 269274.

Past Courses

MKTG211 CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

This course is concerned with how and why people behave as consumers. Its goals are to: (1) provide conceptual understanding of consumer behavior, (2) provide experience in the application of buyer behavior concepts to marketing management decisions and social policy decisionmaking; and (3) to develop analytical capability in using behavioral research.

MKTG266 MKTG FOR SOCIAL IMPACT

Private and public sector firms increasingly use marketing strategies to engage their customers and stakeholders around social impact. To do so, managers need to understand how best to engage and influence customers to behave in ways that have positive social effects. This course focuses on the strategies for changing the behavior of a target segment of consumers on key issues in the public interest (e.g., health behaviors, energy efficiency, poverty reduction, fundraising for social causes). How managers partner with organizations (e.g., nonprofits, government) to achieve social impact will also be explored.

MKTG950 JDGMNT & DEC MAKING CB A

The purpose of this course is to provide a solid foundation for critical thinking and research on the judgment, decisionmaking and choice aspects of consumer behavior. There is a focus on how people process information when making judgments and choices and how the processes of judgment and choice might be improved. Topics of discussion include rationality, judgment under uncertainty, judgment heuristics and biases, risk taking, dealing with conflicting values, framing effects, prospect theory, intertemporal choice, preference formation, and the psychology of utility. The focus will be on the individual decisionmaker, although the topics will also have some applicability to group and organizational decisionmaking and behavioral research methodologies.

MKTG951 JUDMNT & DEC MAKING CB B

The purpose of this course is to build off MKTG950, "Judgment and Decision Making Perspectives on Consumer Behavior Part A" with a more specialized focus that will vary from year to year. This course is intended for those interested in deepening their study of Judgment and Decision Making beyond the basics.

MKTG999 INDEPENDENT STUDY

Requires written permission of instructor and the department graduate adviser.

• Wharton Iron Prof, 2014
• Marketing Science Institute Young Scholar, 2009
• Fellow, Wharton Risk and Decision Processes Center, 2007
• Social Issues Dissertation Award Finalist, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 2005
• Carnegie Mellon Graduate Student Travel Award, 2003
• APA Science Directorate Dissertation Award, $1000, 2003
• Russell Sage Foundation, small research grant for “Identifiability”, $3500, 2003
• Travel grant, Budapest Summer Seminar in Behavioral Economics, 2003
• Carnegie Mellon Graduate Student Travel Award, 2002
• Travel grant, 2001 Description

European Summer Science Days Summer School in the Social and Psychological Foundations of Economic Life

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, Honorable Mention, 2001 Honorable Mention in Student Poster Award, 2001 Description

Annual Meeting for the Society of Judgment and Decision Making, “Helping the Victim or Helping A Victim: Altruism and Identifiability”

Travel grant, 1997 Description

American Psychological Association Summer Science Institute

• Why we resist treating charities like investments, marketwatch.com 08/22/2016
• PayPal withdraws planned N.C. expansion due to antigay law, USA Today 04/06/2016
• Career Advice from 12 Top Minds in Marketing, Marketing News 03/01/2016
• Billions at Stake as IPO Charity SetAsides Become Routine, Chronicle of Philanthropy 12/17/2015
• This provocative new approach to giving can help you save more lives with your money, Washington Post 12/01/2015
• The science behind why people fear refugees, Vox 11/18/2015
• When big brands join awareness campaigns, fit matters, Newsworks 08/07/2015
• Cecil the Lion’s Legacy, Philadelphia Daily News 08/02/2015
• Ward off office foes and influence colleagues with these six researchbased strategies, Washington Post 05/27/2015
• Correctional officers collect supplies for Ebola stricken Liberia, Baltimore Sun 10/30/2014
• How to Raise $750,000 for Charity, the YouTuber Way, GOOD Magazine 10/23/2014
• More money raised for Ferguson officer than slain teen, cnn.com 08/23/2014
• Cheap and charitable pizza: The psychology of Rosa’s PostIt program, Philadelphia CItypaper 08/20/2014
• Raising Awareness about Girls’ Struggles, New York Times 08/04/2014
• Cracking the feminist psyche, and wallet, Washington Post 12/20/2013
• Research Roundup: The Financial Impact of Social Impact, Knowledge@wharton 04/10/2013
• On Samoa Air, Fatter People Pay More to Fly: Good Business or Bad Customer Relations?, Knowedge@Wharton 04/10/2013
• To Tell Its Story, Red Cross Goes to Those It Helped, New York Times 12/13/2012
• Altruism rarely sole motivation for giving, Columbus Dispatch 12/01/2012
• This column will change your life: selfishness, The Guardian 10/19/2012
• Businessnetworking group uses social setting to raise charity, Columbus Dispatch 09/13/2012
• ‘Framing’ Prevents Needed Stimulus, New York Times 09/01/2012
• Business Journalism’s Image Problem, New York Times 08/20/2012
• Declining Employee Loyalty: A Casualty of the New Workplace, Time Business 05/11/2012
• Knowledge@Wharton Human Resources Research ArticleView Article on Knowledge@Wharton Mobile Declining Employee Loyalty: A Casualty of the New Workplace, Knowledge@wharton 05/09/2012
• Stereotypes hurt blackteen programs, The Root 03/21/2012
• Why we give to charity, Boston Globe 12/04/2011
• Haiti response is boon and challenge for nonprofits, The Record 01/18/2010
• Opposites that attract, Philadelphia Daily News 08/18/2009
• I say spend. You say no. We’re in love, New York Times 08/15/2009
• With spending, opposites attract and repel, Yahoo! Finance 08/12/2009
• Does More or Less Make You Mean?, BBC Radio 05/08/2009
• Use your heart and head when giving, Financial Times 03/15/2008
• EmotionRecognition Software Knows What Makes You Smile, Wired Magazine 07/16/2007
• What makes us care, The Globe and Mail 07/14/2007
• Who’s Counting: Pictures, Statistics, and Genocide, ABC News 03/04/2007

Knowledge @ Wharton

• How Fundraising Incentives Can Undermine Persuasion, Knowledge @ Wharton 10/25/2016
• Will the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Change Philanthropy?, Knowledge @ Wharton 12/16/2015
• Beyond the Red Cup: How Holiday Consumers Are Changing, Knowledge @ Wharton 11/24/2015
• To Brag or Not: When It Pays, When It Backfires, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/24/2015
• The Oneforone Business Model: Avoiding Unintended Consequences, Knowledge @ Wharton 02/16/2015
• Job Discrimination Against the Disabled: Not Just an Academic Issue, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/18/2013
• Research Roundup: The Financial Impact of Social Impact, Knowledge @ Wharton 04/10/2013
• On Samoa Air, Fatter People Pay More to Fly: Good Business or Bad Customer Relations?, Knowledge @ Wharton 04/10/2013
• When Values Collide, Consumers Speak with Their Wallets, Knowledge @ Wharton 12/19/2012
• A Day to Give, not Spend, Knowledge @ Wharton 11/27/2012
• Do Something Nice for Yourself — Without Feeling Selfish, Knowledge @ Wharton 09/28/2012
• ‘Masculine Norms’: Why Working Women Find It Hard to Reach the Top, Knowledge @ Wharton 08/03/2011
• Research Roundup: Fiscal Fatal Attraction, the Idiosyncrasies of Entrepreneurs and the Value of Luxury Hiding in Plain Sight, Knowledge @ Wharton 04/27/2011
• Can Hoover Give Soap Operas Another Life to Live?, Knowledge @ Wharton 04/21/2011
• Why ‘Friday’ Just Won’t Go Away, Knowledge @ Wharton 03/24/2011
• To Boycott or Not: The Consequences of a Protest, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/09/2010
• ‘Mustaches for Kids’: Charities Adopt Private Sector Models to Tap New Funds, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/24/2009
• Baseball, Steroids and Business Ethics: How Breaches of Trust Can Change the Game, Knowledge @ Wharton 02/20/2008
• Robbing the Cradle? If Marketers Get Their Way, That Bundle of Joy Can Cost a Bundle, Knowledge @ Wharton 07/25/2007
• To Increase Charitable Donations, Appeal to the Heart — Not the Head, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/27/2007