Professor Danny Oppenheimer studies the way we humans move through this world, making untold numbers of decisions minute by minute. His research focuses on decision making, especially in relation to what information we listen to and what we tune out. He also studies charitable giving, the psychological underpinnings of democracy and much more.
Oppenheimer received his B.A. from Rice University and his Ph.D. from Stanford University. Prior to joining the UCLA Anderson marketing faculty, he was jointly appointed in psychology and public affairs at Princeton University, where he received the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching and the Phi Beta Kappa teaching award.
He edited and contributed to The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity and co-authored Democracy Despite Itself: Why a System that Shouldn’t Work at All Works so Well. He is the author of more than 30 peer-reviewed articles, and his work has been covered by media outlets as diverse as The Economist and Glamour.
We asked Oppenheimer about his interest in psychology, what we should know about charitable giving and what winning one of academia’s most notorious and funny “awards” means to him.
Q: How did you get interested in psychology as an academic pursuit?
I had a number of fantastic mentors in psychology who nurtured my interest in the field and helped me find my strengths and my passion. I was always interested in the human mind, but what brought me into the field was the people.
Q: How did you get interested in investigating charitable giving and the psychological underpinnings of democracy?
Charitable Giving
I was initially intrigued by the discrepancy in giving between the Asian Tsunami and the Kashmir earthquake. People were so generous in response to the tsunami, but much, much less so in response to the earthquake. But both natural disasters were in similar locations, affected similar populations, and caused enormous damage. I wanted to see if I could find out why one led to so much more philanthropy than the other. As I got more involved in charitable giving, my interests broadened a bit, and I never actually solved the puzzle that got me interested in the first place.
Democracy
I study human decision making, and most of what I find isn’t flattering. People often make frighteningly bad decisions. I was talking about my research to Mike Edwards, a political scientist, and speculating on the implications for democracy, and he told me about work in political science showing that democracies were incredibly effective forms of government. This seemed like a paradox — how is it possible that if the inputs into the system (human decisions) were so bad, that the outcomes (welfare for the citizens) could be so good. We started collaborating, and it led to the book Democracy Despite Itself, which addresses this paradox in detail.
Q: What was the impetus for the book you co-edited, The Science of Giving?
At the time, there were many researchers studying giving, but mostly in isolated pockets. Norms researchers were studying how norms led to giving; emotion researchers were studying how emotions led to giving, etc. To really have an impact, we needed to aggregate the findings into a central source, hence the book. We were able to get a number of key charity researchers to contribute, representing the state of the art of what we knew about why and how people give.