iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 17/05/2025

What a fun couple of days in Chicago - enjoyed some great food, friends, and research conversations 🤑 #uic #depaul

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 09/02/2025

Yes, there are going to be situations where joint accounts may not be ideal - we discuss these important caveats in our paper!

010 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 09/02/2025

For sure - we acknowledge important caveats like these in the paper (which I mention in the article as well).

000 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 09/02/2025

With Valentine's Day right around the corner, there's nothing more romantic than merging finances! ❤️ Check out my recent interview in the @nytimes.com: www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/b... You can find our @jcrnews.bsky.social research here: doi.org/10.1093/jcr/...

nytimes.com

Sharing Bank Accounts Can Deepen a Couple’s Relationship (Gift Article)

Fewer couples are combining their bank accounts. But that trend may not promote partners’ overall financial health, experts say.

262 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(9) We thank our entire review team for constructive feedback throughout the review process + a major league professional sports team and the National Park Service for sharing data. #ConsumerPsychology #BehavioralResearch #Happiness #Income

000 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(8) This research reveals the flaws in how we think about happiness, human needs, and income. 🧠✨ Bottom line: Perception is not reality!

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(7) When we ask people directly, we find that: ✅the priority level assigned to various human needs does NOT systematically vary by income AND ✅ income either has no effect on actual happiness OR the opposite effect such that lower-income consumers report greater happiness.

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(6) Here’s the catch: these lay theory-driven inferences are faulty!

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(5) This lay belief leads to income-based inferences. People BELIEVE that low-income consumers do (and should) prioritize their physical needs first, but high-income consumers (who have presumably already fulfilled their physical needs) can prioritize their psychological needs.

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(4) We show that people hold a lay belief that human needs must be fulfilled in a linear, step-by-step way. In other words, people must completely satisfy their lower-level physical needs (food, water) before fulfilling their higher-level psychological needs.

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(3) Across a series of different domains, we show that relative to themselves, people expect low-income individuals to enjoy psychological consumption experiences LESS and high-income individuals to enjoy them MORE. Why?

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

(2) Does income impact happiness from life’s experiences?💡 We find that people BELIEVE income determines how much people will enjoy “psychological consumption experiences” like visiting a park or attending a comedy show, concert, or sporting event.

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

New paper alert 🚨 Excited to share that our new paper, "When and Why Consumers (Erroneously) Believe Income Impacts the Enjoyment of Consumption Experiences," has been published in @jcrnews.bsky.social! Check it out here: tinyurl.com/happyjcr A quick🧵

162 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 27/01/2025

No worries - I know how it goes! Thanks for sharing our work 💪🏼

100 0

Jenny Olson @jennygin18.bsky.social · 26/01/2025

Thanks for posting! We actually find that consumers believe that wealthier people will enjoy these experiences *MORE* than ourselves or lower-income people. And it’s due to which needs we think they do (and should) prioritize.

100 0