As a practical matter, how much effort do you put into pinning down the causes behind daily occurrences? To developmental psychologist Frank Keil, who studies causal thinking, that answer is likely along the lines of 'not enough.' A lack of causal thinking is both endemic, and, to an extent, hurtful these days, he argues, suggesting that lacking even simplified causal models makes things like the black box of artificial intelligence a potential problem.

In this Social Science Bites podcast, Keil, the Charles C. and Dorathea S. Dilley Professor of Psychology and Linguistics at Yale University, outlines for interviewer David Edmonds how causal thinking is a skill we seem to have at an early age, but which diminishes as we grow up. "[K]ids, by the time they approach elementary school, are asking up to 200 'why' and 'how' questions a day," he explains. "Within a year or two up to starting school, they're down to two or three, often none."

Furthermore, Keil sees this diminishment continuing in society today – and this comes as a cost. "I think it's making kids today be pushed more towards surface understanding, being user interface understanders. I think it makes influences more influential. To just say 'This is cool' as opposed to 'This is how it works.' One of the negative consequences is that we can get fooled by misinformation more; one of the best ways to debunk an expert is to ask them to explain the mechanism."

At Yale, Keil directs the Cognition and Development lab. He has written several books, from academe-oriented books like Developmental Psychology: The Growth of Mind and Behavior, to more general reader titles like Wonder: Childhood and the Lifelong Love of Science. His awards include the Boyd R. McCandless Award from the American Psychological Association (Developmental Psychology), the Distinguished Scientific Award for an Early Career Contribution to Psychology from the American Psychological Association, a Guggenheim Fellowship, a fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, a MERIT Award from the National Institutes of Health, and the Ann L. Brown Award for Excellence in Developmental Research.

Having been raised in Los Angeles, a place with vast swathes of single-family homes connected by freeways, arriving in Costa Rica was an eye opener for the young cultural anthropologist Setha Low. "I thought it was so cool that everybody was there together," she tells interview David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast. "… Everybody was talking. Everybody knew their place. It was like a complete little world, a microcosm of Costa Rican society, and I hadn't seen anything like that in suburban Los Angeles."

That epiphany set Low, now a distinguished professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, onto a journey filled with the exploration of public spaces and a desire to explain them to the rest of the world. This trek has resulted in more than a hundred scholarly articles and a number of books, most recently Why Public Space Matters but including 2006's Politics of Public Space with Neil Smith; 2005's Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity with S. Scheld and D. Taplin; 2004's Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America; 2003's The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture with D. Lawrence-Zuniga; and 2000's On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture.

Low is also director of the Graduate Center's Public Space Research Group, and has received a Getty Fellowship, a fellow in the Center for Place, Culture and Politics, a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, a Fulbright Senior Fellowship, and a Guggenheim for her ethnographic research on public space in Latin America and the United States.

She was president of the American Anthropological Association (from 2007 to 2009) and has worked on public space research in projects for the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford and was cochair of the Max Planck Institute for Religious and Ethnic Diversity's Public Space and Diversity Network.

As an anthropologist, Victor Buchli has one foot in the Neolithic past and another in the space-faring future. A professor of material culture at University College London, his research has taken him from excavations of the New Stone Age site at Çatalhöyük, Turkey to studies of the modern suburbs of London to examinations of life on -- and in service to -- the International Space Station.

It is in that later role, as principal investigator for a European Research Council-funded research project on the "Ethnography of an Extraterrestrial Society," that he visits the Social Science Bites podcast. He details for interviewer David Edmonds some of the things his team has learned from studying the teams -- both in space but more so those on Earth -- supporting the International Space Station.

Buchli describes, for example, the "overview effect." The occurs when which people seeing the Earth without the dotted lines and map coordinates that usually color their perceptions. "When you look down," he explains, "you don't see borders, you just see the earth in its totality, in a sense that produces a new kind of universalism."

He also reviews his own work on material culture, specifically examining how microgravity affects the creation of things. "It is the case within the social sciences, and particularly within anthropology, that gravity is just assumed. And so here we have an environment where suddenly this one single factor that controls absolutely everything that we do as humans on Earth is basically factored out. So how does that change our understanding of these human activities, these sorts of human institutions?"

Buchli has written extensively on material culture, serving as managing editor of the Journal of Material Culture, founding and managing editor of Home Cultures, and editor of 2002's The Material Culture Reader and the five-volume Material Culture: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. Other books he's written include 1995's Interpreting Archaeology, 1999's An Archaeology of Socialism, and 2001's Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past.

Let's say you were asked to name the greatest health risks facing the planet. Priceton University economist Ramanan Laxminarayan, founder and director of the One Health Trust, would urgently suggest you include anti-microbial resistance near the top of that list.

"We're really in the middle of a crisis right now," he tells interview David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast. "Every year, about 5 million people die of infections that are associated with antibiotic resistance -- 5 million. That's nearly twice the number of people who die of HIV, TB and malaria, put together -- put together. Antibiotic resistance and associated deaths are the third leading cause of death in the world, after heart disease and stroke. So you're talking about something that's really, really big, and this is not in the future. It is right now."

The underlying problem, simply put, is that humans are squandering perhaps the greatest health innovations in the last century by using antibiotics stupidly, allowing pathogens to develop resistance and thus rendering existing antibiotics worthless.

For the last 30 years and in particular through One Health Trust and as director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Antimicrobial Resistance, Laxminarayan has labored to make both shine a light on anti-microbial resistance and push for policies to address it. This, he tells Edmonds, is a social science problem even more so than a medical science problem – but not the exclusive province of either. "I think one of the failures of economics," he says, "in some ways, is that we don't take the trouble to understand the nitty gritty of the actual other field, especially when it deals with health economics or environmental economics."

In addition to his role as a senior research scholar at Princeton, Laxminarayan is an affiliate professor at the University of Washington, a senior associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde.

Flexibility is a cardinal virtue in physical fitness, and according to political psychologist and neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod, it can be a cardinal virtue in our mental health, too. How she came to that conclusion and how common rigid thinking can be are themes explored in her new book, The Ideological Brain.

"I think that from all the research that I've done," she tells interviewer David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast, "I feel that what rigid thinking does is it numbs people to the complexity of their own experience, and it simplifies their thinking. It makes them less free, less authentic, less expansive in their imagination." And while she acknowledges there are times being unbending may be seen as an asset, "rigid thinking is rarely good for you at an individual level."

In this podcast, she details some of the work – both with social science experimentation and with brain imaging – that determines if people are flexible in their thinking, what are the real-life benefits of being flexible, if they can change, and how an ideological brain, i.e. a less flexible brain, affects politics and other realms of decision-making.

"When you teach or when you try to impart flexible thinking, you're focusing on how people are thinking, not what they're thinking," Zmigrod explains. "So it's not like you can have a curriculum of 'like here is what you need to think in order to think flexibly,' but it's about teaching how to think in that balanced way that is receptive to evidence, that is receptive to change, but also isn't so persuadable that any new authority can come and take hold of your thoughts."

Zmigrod was a Gates Scholar at Cambridge University and won a winning a Junior Research Fellowship at Churchill College there. She has since held visiting fellowships at Stanford and Harvard universities, and both the Berlin and Paris Institutes for Advanced Study. Amond many honors the young scholar received are the ESCAN 2020 Young Investigator Award by the European Society for Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, the Glushko Dissertation Prize in Cognitive Science by the Cognitive Science Society, . the 2020 Women of the Future Science Award and the 2022 Women in Cognitive Science Emerging Leader Award, and the 2022 Distinguished Junior Scholar Award in Political Psychology by the American Political Science Association.

When economic news, especially that revolving around working, gets reported, it tends to get reported in aggregate – the total number of jobs affected or created, the average wage paid, the impact on a defined geographic area. This is an approach labor economist David Autor knows well. But he also knows that the aggregate often masks the effect on the individual.

In this Social Science Bites podcast, Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor, Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow, Google Technology and Society Visiting Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines two momentous changes to global economics and how they play out for individuals. He explains to interviewer David Edmonds how the rise of China's manufacturing dominance and the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence likely are and will affect individual people accustomed to do specific tasks for pay.

What he finds is not as straightforward as the headlines alluded to above. Take China and its remarkable ascent and how that impacted the United States.

"[The rise] benefited a lot of people. It lowered prices. It allowed American companies to kind of produce a lot of products more cheaply. You know, it's hard to imagine Apple's growth without China, for example, to do all that assembly, which would have been extremely expensive to do in the United States. At the same time, it displaced a lot of people, more than a million, and in a very geographically and temporarily concentrated way, extremely scarring the labor market. Now those people also got lower prices, but that's not even remote compensation for what they lost. And now there are new jobs -- even in those places where those trade shock occurs -- but it's not really the same people doing them. It's not the people who lost manufacturing work."

Concerns about these shocks have been widespread in the 2020s, but the tough if erratic talk about tariffs coming from the U.S. president centers on the idea of restoring something (while ignoring question of that thing ever existed or if it makes sense to go back). Autor argues that the administration actually is asking the right question – but they are arriving at the wrong answers, He notes that the U.S. currently has a half a million unfilled manufacturing jobs open already, a sizeable figure relative to the nation's 13 million manufacturing workers. But that number itself is roughly a tenth of China's 120 million.

"We cannot compete with them across every front. .. What we should be very deeply worried about is losing the frontier sectors that we currently maintain. Those are threatened. So aircraft, telecommunications, robotics, power generation, fusion, quantum computing, batteries and storage, electric vehicles, shipping. These are sectors that we still have (except for shipping, actually) but China is making incredibly fast progress, and instead of trying to get commodity furniture back, we need to think about the current war we're in, not the last war."

At MIT, Autor is co-director of the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative, while off campus he is a research associate and co-director of the Labor Studies Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Are university students unhappy? We won't generalize, but many are, and this was something Bruce Hood noted. Being an experimental psychologist who teaches at the University of Bristol, an opportunity presented itself. Why not start a course on the science of happiness, and while teaching it collect data from the students attending?

The resulting course (created with advice from one his former students, Laurie Santos) proved popular, and Hood last year published a book, The Science of Happiness: Seven Lessons for Living Well. In this Social Science Bites podcast, Hood explains to interviewer David Edmonds the scientific basis of happiness, some details on how to measure it, and then some of those lessons for harvesting its benefits.

Hood explains how scholarship has determined some genetic basis for happiness, how circumstances contribute to but don't dictate happiness, and how individuals focus more on the negative than the positive, which clearly not the most nurturing environment for happiness. There is a bias towards negativity, he says, "So that's why we know the negative things more quickly and more loudly than the positive."

That sounds bad (see – negative). But there's another bias at play, one that also favors optimism, that Hood attempts to harness. "So we tend to see the future as grim, and we have these distortions. But what's interesting, if you ask people, 'Do you think to yourself individually you'll be better off in five years' time?' Then it seems to switch. People seem to say, 'Yeah, I think I will be better.' So, it's a kind of interesting paradox that we think the world's going to hell in a basket. And yet, as individuals, we think things can get better."

Hood's research interests arose around the visual development of infants, and then evolved to include intuitive theories, self-identity, essentialism and the cognitive processes behind magical thinking in adults. It was in relation to those that Hood first appeared on Social Science Bites, addressing the human belief in the supernatural. You can listen to that podcast, and also enjoy a lovely Alex Cagan poster built around the episode.

Let's cut to the chase: "The overwhelming majority of murders in the United States involve guns," says economist Jens Ludwig. "And in fact, most of the difference in overall murder rates between the United States and other countries are due to murders with guns."

This may seem intuitively obvious to outside observers, but studying guns within the United States has long been a fraught endeavor, and the amount of research isn't commensurate with the impact on U.S. society. That said, Ludwig has taken on exploring the roots of American gun violence, work that serves as grist for the Crime Lab he directs at the University of Chicago and for many of his books, including his latest, Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence. What's he's found is that the folk wisdom around gun violence doesn't rally hold up to the evidence.

In this Social Science Bites episode, he explains to interviewer David Edmonds how – using insights about 'system one' and system two' thinking developed by Daniel Kahneman – cognition in individuals has more explanatory power than traditional variables like poverty, education and environment.

"I think system one plays an underappreciated role in all interpersonal violence, all of the issues, and this way of seeing what is driving violent behavior among people is equally true for knife violence in the UK and on and on," Ludwig says. "So I think this is really a universal thing about people's behavior. This sort of frame on the problem helps make sense of a bunch of patterns in the data."

Ludwig is the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Pritzker Director of the Crime Lab and codirector of the Education Lab at that campus, and codirector of the National Bureau of Economic Research's working group on the economics of crime.

He and his labs are routinely recognized for their work. The Crime Lab in 2014, for example, received a MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions, while eight years earlier Ludwig himself was awarded the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management's David N. Kershaw Prize for Contributions to Public Policy by Age 40. Some of the books he's co-authored or co-edited include 2000's Gun Violence: The Real Costs, 2003's Evaluating Gun Policy, and 2012's Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs.

A new people has emerged in the digital age, that of 'internet famous' celebrities. And that new people has a class of social scientist focused on studying them, the digital anthropologist. Crystal Abidin, a professor at Australia's Curtin University and founding director of the Influencer Ethnography Research Lab there, is such as digital anthropologist. Her research covers influencers – both adult and child and the general pop culture centered on social media, especially in the Asia Pacific region.

In this Social Science Bites podcast, Abidin offers interviewer David Edmonds a metaphor to understand how her cyber-ethnography and digital anthropology work in practice. "I often think of anthropologists as Mars rovers that you throw into these unknown planets, and slowly but surely, we roll around the planet looking for bits of data, bits of material that might be new or novel. We're not going for quantity and volume at this scale. We're looking for what's neglected, unseen, sidelined by the margins, not yet mainstream. And we're measuring how much of these things are characteristic of the planet and worthy of study. … [A]s an anthropologist, given that my fidelity is to people and their cultures, I don't always only go for the shiniest, most mainstream thing. I often look for what's left behind."

In this conversation, though, Abidin talks about something very shiny indeed – those professional internet celebrities known collectively as "influencers." She explains how while the top influencers do generate the paydays seen in popular media, the ecosystem extends down to individuals who are spending their own money in hopes of someday making it big. She also draws a distinction between influencers and creators, and also between influencers and memes.

Abidin also dives into regional differences in influencer culture, using her own detailed analysis of Asia Pacific influencer cultures, to explore regional differences that should be understood when assessing content on global platforms. "[I]f we were to discount the hegemony of American popular culture and their stronghold and a lot of social media, the palette is so diverse, the markets are so varied, that trends go in many different directions. So we need to sometimes think about who we are speaking about, what the superpower of the day is, and whenever we make these generalizations, what are the limitations? Who's not included in them?"

In addition to her role at Curtin, Abidin founded the TikTok Cultures Research Network and is an affiliate researcher with the Media Management and Transformation Centre at Jönköping University. She was named an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow for 2019 to 2024. Currently the editor-in-chief of Media International Australia, she has written or edited a number of books that bridge popular concerns with academic rigor, including 2018's Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online and this year's Influencer Marketing: Interdisciplinary and Socio-Cultural Perspectives (co-edited with Lauren Gurrieri and Jenna Drenten),

Everyone, we assume, wants to be their best person. Few of us, perhaps, none, hits all their marks in this pursuit even if the way toward the goal is generally apparent. If you want to know how to do a better job hitting those marks, whether its walking 10,000 steps, learning Esperanto, or quitting smoking, a good person to consult would be Katy Milkman. Working at the nexus of economics and psychology, Milkman – the James G. Dinan Professor at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and co-founder of the Behavior Change for Good Initiative at Penn – studies the almost alchemical process of turning good intentions into solid actions.

In this Social Science Bites podcast, she details for interviewer David Edmonds some of the biases and some of the critical thinking processes that both define and then overcome the obstacles to changing our behavior. These range from concepts with such academic names as present bias and temptation bundling to the more colloquial 'what the hell effect' and its antidote, the emergency reserve. But the point of her research – especially as it gets translated to the public through her podcast Choiceology or her 2021 book How to Change: The Science of Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be – is to find practical ways to change yourself.

For example, she explains that "it's important for goals to be measurable and achievable, although they should be a stretch. You know, if your goal is 'exercise more,' how can you measure that? How could you even set a commitment device, for instance? … It's also important to have a plan of, sort of, when will I do it, where will I do it, how will I get there. These are called "implementation intentions." I think the most important part of them is they associate a cue with the action. So just like an actor needs a cue to know when to say their lines, we need to not forget to take action on our goals."

Her influence in turn is felt practically. Choiceology, for example, is sponsored by the brokerage house Charles Schwab, and Milkman has been a consultant for organizations ranging from the U.S. government and Walmart to 24 Hour Fitness and the American Red Cross. She is a former president of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making and a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science.

We'd love to hear your feedback on the Social Science Bites series. Please let us know your thoughts on Social Science Bites by taking our short survey, and you'll be entered to win one of five free copies of the Social Science Bites book, Understanding Humans.