Journal Publications

Hagerty, Serena F. and Kate Barasz (2020), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Lower-income individuals are frequently criticized for their consumption decisions; this research examines why. Eleven preregistered studies document systematic differences in permissible consumption—interpersonal judgments about what is acceptable (or not) for others to consume—such that lower-income individuals’ decisions are subject to more negative and restrictive evaluations. Indeed, the same consumption decisions may be deemed less permissible for a lower-income individual than for an individual with higher or unknown income (Studies 1A and 1B), even when purchased with windfall funds. This gap persists among participants from a large, nationally representative sample (Study 2) and when testing a broad array of “everyday” consumption items (Study 3). Additional studies investigate why: The same items are often perceived as less necessary for lower- (versus higher-) income individuals (Studies 4 and 5). Combining both permissibility and perceived necessity, additional studies (Studies 6 and 7) demonstrate a causal link between the two constructs: A purchase decision will be deemed permissible (or not) to the extent that it is perceived as necessary (or not). However, because—for lower-income individuals—fewer items are perceived as necessary, fewer are therefore socially permissible to consume. This finding not only exposes a fraught double standard, but also portends consequential behavioral implications: People prefer to allocate strictly “necessary” items to lower-income recipients (Study 8), even if such items are objectively and subjectively less valuable (Studies 9A and 9B), which may result in an imbalanced and inefficient provision of resources to the poor.


Press coverage: 

Forbes, What Is An 'Essential' Purchase For A Low-Income Family?

Barasz, Kate and Serena F. Hagerty (2021), Journal of Consumer Research.

Nine studies investigate when and why people may paradoxically prefer bad news—e.g., hoping for an objectively worse injury or a higher-risk diagnosis over explicitly better alternatives. Using a combination of field surveys and randomized experiments, the research demonstrates that people may hope for relatively worse (versus better) news in an effort to preemptively avoid subjectively difficult decisions (Studies 1–2). This is because when worse news avoids a choice (Study 3A)—e.g., by “forcing one’s hand” or creating one dominant option that circumvents a fraught decision (Study 3B)—it can relieve the decision-maker’s experience of personal responsibility (Study 3C). However, because not all decisions warrant avoidance, not all decisions will elicit a preference for worse news; fewer people hope for worse news when facing subjectively easier (versus harder) choices (Studies 4A­–B). Finally, this preference for worse news is not without consequence and may create perverse incentives for decision-makers, such as the tendency to forgo opportunities for improvement (Studies 5A–B). The work contributes to the literature on decision avoidance and elucidates another strategy people use to circumvent difficult decisions: a propensity to hope for the worst.


Press coverage: 

Forbes, Tell Me What To Do: When Bad News Is A Big Relief


Serena F. Hagerty, Bhavya Mohan, and Michael I. Norton (2021), Behavioral Public Policy

Four experiments examine the impact of a firm deciding to no longer pay salaries for executives versus employees on consumer behavior, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 explores the effect of announcing either pay cessations or continued pay for either CEO or employees, and shows that firms’ commitment to maintaining employee pay leads to the most positive consumer reactions. Study 2 examines the effects of simultaneously announcing employee and CEO pay cessations: consumers respond most positively to firms prioritizing employee pay, regardless of their strategy for CEO pay. Moreover, these positive perceptions are mediated by perceptions of financial pain to employees, more than perceptions of CEO-to-worker pay ratio fairness. Study 3, using an incentive-compatible design, shows that firms’ commitment to paying employees their full wages matters more to consumers than cuts to executive pay, even when those executive pay cuts lead to a lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio. Study 4 tests our account in a non-COVID-19 context, and shows that consumers continue to react favorably to firms that maintain employee pay, but when loss is less salient, consumers prioritize cutting CEO pay and lowering the CEO-to-worker pay ratio. We discuss the implications of our results for firms and policy-makers during economic crises.



Hanne K. Collins, Serena F. Hagerty, Jordi Quoidbach, Michael I. Norton, and Alison Wood Brooks (2022), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


We document a link between the relational diversity of one’s social portfolio—the richness and evenness of relationship types across one’s social interactions—and well-being. Across four distinct samples, respondents from the United States who completed a preregistered survey (n = 578), respondents to the American Time Use Survey (n = 19,197), respondents to the World Health Organization’s Study on Global Aging and Adult Health (n = 10,447), and users of a French mobile application (n = 21,644), specification curve analyses show that the positive relationship between social portfolio diversity and well-being is robust across different metrics of well-being, different categorizations of relationship types, and the inclusion of a wide range of covariates. Over and above people’s total amount of social interaction and the diversity of activities they engage in, the relational diversity of their social portfolio is a unique predictor of well-being, both between individuals and within individuals over time.



Press coverage: 

NPR, Weak social ties are just as important as strong ones for greater life satisfaction



Working Papers

Inequality of Opportunity Cost Consideration 

Serena F. Hagerty (solo-authored)

Lower-income individuals are often subject to harsher evaluations of their consumption decisions relative to their higher-income peers. This research investigates a novel mechanism for systematically negative judgments of lower-income individuals’ purchase decisions. Five studies demonstrate that individuals are more likely to spontaneously consider the opportunity costs of a purchase made by a lower-(vs. higher-) income consumer, and therefore perceive the same purchase as less of a necessity and as less permissible. Study 1 shows that individuals are more likely to spontaneously consider opportunity costs when observing a purchase made by a lower-income consumer (vs. a higher-income or unknown income control). Study 2 finds that even when prompted to generate opportunity costs, individuals generate systematically different alternatives for lower-income consumers than for higher-income or no-income control consumers. Consequently, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrate that the same item is perceived as less of a necessity, and therefore less permissible, when purchased by a lower-income consumer because opportunity costs are more salient to the observer. Importantly these effects emerge for both hedonic (e.g., a TV) and utilitarian items (e.g., a vacuum or toaster). Finally, Study 5 demonstrates that reducing opportunity costs salience—such as by narrowing the use of funds—mitigates the income gap in consumption permissibility.


Zero-Sum Perceptions Reduce Acceptability of Premium Offerings

Serena F. Hagerty, Debora V. Thompson and Chris DU PLESSIS

Many firms offer premium services that provide ease, expedience, and access to those who can afford them. These services provide clear benefits to the individuals who use them and the firms that may profit from them. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that many– particularly non- premium consumers – often believe that when firms offer premium services, the consumers of basic services are made worse off. Eight studies demonstrate the importance of these zero-sum perceptions on the perceived acceptability of premium services. While it is morally acceptable for a firm to offer enhanced services at high prices, it is unacceptable for a firm to offer a premium service that detracts from the experiences of other customers. Importantly, zero-sum perceptions are responsive to both objective aspects of a service and subjective beliefs of the consumer. Contributing to norm violation literature, these studies show that beyond moral judgments, zero-sum perceptions, may lead to negative evaluations of the firm, retaliation behavior, and diminished consumer demand.