Featured Post from Emory University, Goizueta Business School

#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point

Sep 19, 2025

6 min

When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant.

This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment.

From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment

Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences.

This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t.

When Obedience Becomes a Liability

In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design.

This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked.

The Challenge of AI Accountability

What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making.

In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation.

The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks.

There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies.

Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight

Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand.

There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply?

Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom.

Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems.

The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean

Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.

Connect with:

Wei Jiang

Vice Dean for Faculty and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance

A leading finance scholar with extensive leadership roles.

Corporate FinanceCorporate GovernanceTechnology and Financial MarketsLaw and Finance

Find Experts

May 7, 2026

8 min

Expert Insights: Want More Engagement? Eliminate the Barriers.

Anyone born in the 70’s or earlier will probably remember it well. Time was when playing any kind of video game meant physically disporting yourself to the local arcade—a twilight zone of flashing neon, electronic beeps and bops, and the clink of quarters hitting the slot. As technology advanced, the videogame came to you. Home consoles and TV stations rigged with joysticks duly became the mainstay of gaming. The Atari 2600 brought the arcade experience into dens all over the US; Pac-Man, Space Invaders, and Asteroids now at the fingertips of a generation of games who no longer needed to leave home to play. Fast forward to the era of smart phones and hi-tech, and gaming has evolved again. Today, Fortnite, Minecraft, and The Legend of Zelda can accompany you pretty much anywhere—onto a train or a bus, into the canteen at work or school, or under the covers at 2am. In our always-on, on-demand world, video gaming increasingly meets players where they are; a play-anywhere, digital user experience that empowers individuals to engage with their game of choice wherever they are, whenever it suits, and via whatever platform they prefer, desktop or mobile. For users, the benefits seem clear. But what about game producers? As availability expands to new channels and platforms, how does it change user behavior? Does it deepen engagement or does cross-platform continuity simply end up redistributing play—the addition of each new platform shifting players away from, and effectively cannibalizing, existing channels? It’s a conundrum, and not just for video game producers. Retailers, bankers, insurance firms, media, and hospitality providers—anyone with an online-first approach looking to meet their customers wherever they are—should also be cognizant of the potential downsides of channel expansion in the digital space. Weighing in here is research by Professor of Marketing and expert in the intersection of sports and cultural analytics and marketing Michael Lewis. Together with Wooyong Jo of Purdue, Lewis looks at the impact of omni-channel strategy on videogames—a proxy, he says, for other sectors and industries. What they find is critical for marketers and decision-makers in any context or business setting. Increasing the digital touchpoints between your product and customers does impact behavior—but the net results are overwhelmingly positive. Video game players play more, they spend more frequently, and they integrate gameplay more deeply into their everyday lives. In other words, the investment pays off. And the dividends in customer engagement are serious. Switching to the Switch To unpack all of this, Lewis and Jo partnered with a large US video game publisher to analyze player-level behavioral data for one its major titles in the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, or MOBA genre. Players form teams and compete to destroy opposing team’s bases, selecting a character from a set of 100+ options. Revenue for the publisher comes from a “freemium” business model—users can make voluntary purchases to unlock new characters or buy cosmetic enhancements. These purchases are geared toward enhancing the gaming experience but don’t affect competitive outcomes, making them a critical measure of engagement. In 2019, the game was released for the Nintendo Switch, which can be docked in home consoles but is most commonly used as a mobile, hand-held device. PC players were given the option to download this new version and continue gameplay seamlessly using their existing accounts. Analyzing player behavior before and after the adoption of the new Switch platform, Lewis and Jo were able to zoom in on some critical measures of user engagement including game usage or the total number of matches played, in-game spending—what, when and how much players spent—and player inactivity or churn. “We were able to really get into player behavior over time, and what happens when you introduce the Switch option and remove the constraints of having to play in one place—the home or gaming PC,” says Lewis. “What happens when you make it possible for players to access the game they love while they’re commuting or on their lunchbreak?” Plenty, it turns out. Mobile access: gameplay, spending and churn Crunching the data, Lewis and Jo find that mobile access dramatically increases gameplay. Players who adopted the Switch version played approximately 31% more games than before—a dramatic uptick that underscores how flexibility gains translate into new opportunities to play and engage. And that’s not all. Lewis and Jo also find that gameplay becomes less concentrated within narrow windows—after school or work, say—and is now more spread out across the day, the result of the “ubiquity effect,” says Lewis. “Take away the constraints of having to be in a fixed location and you see players adding additional play sessions. Interestingly though, we don’t find any adverse effect on PC gaming. Players are simply playing more, and playing longer, rather than replacing PC time.” Then there’s in-game purchasing. MOBA-type games typically give players the option to voluntarily buy modifications for characters, known as “skins.” These skins are cosmetic enhancements: new armor, costumes, skill animations or effects. Crucially, these kinds of purchases don’t advance players to new levels of success in the game. Instead, they are used for personalization—to demonstrate status or to celebrate an in-game event. Lewis and Jo find that mobile adopters make more frequent in-game purchases. While the overall total doesn’t increase materially, these players are spending small amounts, more often—almost 7% more frequently than before. This makes intuitive sense, says Lewis. If players are logging in more often, they have more opportunities to feel inspired to want to spend on skins. But there’s another factor that may be at work. “With this kind of in-game purchasing, it’s likely that a lot of it is about credibility. When you buy a skin or a character pack, it’s like you have more aura within the game; you want to signal something to other players and let yourself be known. And this is more than just monetary, it’s about a deeper kind of engagement,” says Lewis. “It’s possible that as mobile access makes the game more of a frequent companion, as the rate of play increases, there’s this effect that players fall deeper into the community—their engagement deepens even more.” Interestingly, the shift to mobile access had the most significant impact precisely on those players whose pre-Switch in-game purchasing was lowest. These users, who were arguably most likely to disengage and drift away from the game, became significantly more active once the hand-held option became available. “If you have players spending less and less inside the game, the intuition is that these are the customers you are most at risk of losing,” says Lewis. “Bringing in the Switch has seen these customers—those more prone to churn—actively reengage with the game, maybe because they have greater propensity for the mobile version.” Either way, this should be a particularly interesting finding for marketers, he adds; retaining existing users is typically cheaper than attracting new ones. “The evidence suggests that mobile access can serve not only as a growth strategy, but also a defensive one if it helps keep marginal users engaged; those who might otherwise have detached from the product altogether.” Help Them Switch So far, so encouraging. There is one potential downside to porting a game or online product to a new channel, however, and that is usability. Lewis and Jo find that players who switched between platforms experience a slight, initial decline in in-game performance—likely because of differences in the control systems between devices. Players who’ve been using keyboard and mouse controls may need time to adapt to hand-held controllers. To mitigate this, he and Jo suggest that producers could offer tutorials or introductory gameplay modes that accelerate the learning curve as users adjust to the new interface. In most cases, usability should be factored in as an additional, hidden cost, when developers and organizations are contemplating investing in more online customer touchpoints. “Expanding your online channels will always have some cost. Taking a game from one platform and porting it to another one isn’t free, so you will want to anticipate the hurdles, even as you weigh up the clear benefits,” says Lewis. “The key is to make sure you protect your users. With things like video games, you want to think about how to guide or upskill your players, maybe have them play bots at first to ramp up their capabilities. Whenever you create a new channel that has a different operating system from the user’s perspective, you’re probably going to want to provide some aid to your fan community.” The benefits of omni-channel access should always be weighted against the costs involved, counsels Lewis. Even so, today’s competitive pressures—the seemingly inexorable march of technological innovation and evolving user expectations—are likely to make platform expansion unavoidable for most online businesses. In the world of video gaming, as major franchises release new products across multiple platforms, and player preferences become more sophisticated, companies may simply have to adopt similar strategies to remain competitive. “As everyone else invests in the same new technologies, you almost have to do the same—just as a matter of doing business,” says Lewis. “If you are launching a video game, you’ve got to compete with whatever Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto are doing. You can’t just tell your players they can only engage on one platform. The competition is continuously raising the stakes just in terms of the bare minimum.” Building Fandom: the Connective Cultural Tissue More broadly, Lewis and Jo’s findings speak to how human beings form communities of shared passion around business entities and, perhaps more compellingly, around cultural phenomena: video games, for sure, but also sports teams, music, films, comic books, fashion, and more. Understanding the mechanisms that drive and deepen engagement sheds more light on what Lewis calls the “connective cultural tissue of fandom: ”the powerful social bonds, camaraderie, and shared identity that connect people to cultural entities and to each other. Fandom, he argues, is the “key to our world.” Understanding fan behavior is critical to understanding how it is that games, brands, sporting teams, or politics forge communities built on shared passion. “Whatever your organization or business is, you are going to be interested in driving passion. You want people to engage and love what you do. What we’re looking at in this study is a building block towards understanding how cultural entities fit into consumers’ lives, and how eliminating barriers helps to expand communities and drive relationships—extending reach and engagement by weaving cultural experiences more deeply into everyday life.” The real challenge in front of organizations, be they video game producers or online retailers, says Lewis, is to give their product the kind of “cultural meaning” that creates fans—and not just users. “When you think about the behavior of fans, the level of passion and engagement that exists around cultural phenomena—whatever they are from video games to FIFA, the English Football League to the Super Bowl, Taylor Swift to the Republican Party—that’s where you see the passion that really drives the world. And that to me, is critical in understanding how business works, how societies function, and how our world evolves.”

May 12, 2026

5 min

Why Shrinking the Pay Gap is a Question of Dollars, Not Percentages

The gender wage gap shows no sign of improving any time soon. If anything, evidence suggests it’s growing in the United States. Recent stats show that for every dollar earned by men, women in the same job earn just 92 cents—that equates to one month of salary less in a given year. That gap widens even more for Black and other minority women. In the meantime, men’s wages are increasing—just shy of 4% in the last two years—while women’s income hasn’t budged. Organizations should take note, warn Goizueta’s Karl Schuhmacher and Kristy Towry. Wage inequity is an issue that undermines the concept of equal pay for equal work. It’s also bad for business. Employers that don’t pay or play fair with their workers stand to lose talent to competitors who offer better conditions, not to mention customers or investors who care about fairness. And that’s not all. In meritocracies, employees are incentivized to engage more, care more, and create more value because they understand their compensation is pegged to the effort they make and outcomes they achieve—to merit itself, regardless of demographics. The gender wage gap in the United States is inherently unmeritocratic. And fixing it has proved elusive—at least until now. In their new study, co-authored by Goizueta PhD graduate, Hayden T. Gunnell 25PhD of the University of Texas in Austin, Schuhmacher and Towry have come up with a novel approach to addressing the gender wage gap; one as practicable as it is simple. And it’s all down to percentages. Pay Gaps Baked In Most employers review employee salaries on an annual basis—usually yoking them to performance reviews. Overwhelmingly, managers will frame raises in terms of percentages: those doing well might be awarded a five or even 10 percent pay raise, for example. The problem with this, argues Schuhmacher, is that percentage-based raises are tied to initial salaries. And if that baseline is biased from the start, handing out similar percentage raises will only compound the problem, and perpetuate inequities—whatever the intention. If women start out getting paid less than men for the same job, and your raise budgets are framed in percentages, you end up baking those gaps in more, even if you don’t mean to. Karl Schuhmacher, Assistant Professor of Accounting “That five percent raise you’re giving everyone for the same job well done sounds fair and effective,” says Schuhmacher. “But it’s only actually fair if the initial salary is equitable—if Jane has been making the same as John from the off. And if she hasn’t—if John is being overcompensated relative to Jane—then all you’re doing is perpetuating that gap.” Awarding similar percentage raises doesn’t recognize or acknowledge preexisting, unfair discrepancies in initial salaries. A better approach, he and Towry argue, is to reframe pay raise budgets in terms of absolute dollars. “Budgeting for raises in absolute terms—a $150,000 pool for all raises in a group, say, versus a budgeted pool of 5% per person—automatically unshackles raises from preexisting unfairness in people’s pay,” says Schuhmacher. “You reduce the risk of perpetuating pay gaps by giving managers a way of assessing and evaluating work and assigning a dollar value that recognizes that work. It’s a fairer, more meritocratic approach.” It also has the effect of “nudging the cognitive processes” that employers use. Percentages are a ubiquitous way of determining raise budgets because they feel fair and easy to use, says Towry. A five percent raise for employees sounds reasonable, equitable, and doesn’t tax managers cognitively, making it simple to implement again and again—a norm or procedural “anchor” within most organizations. Substituting dollars for percentages, however, should provide enough of a nudge that managers focus more on the actual value their employees contribute to the organization. And it shouldn’t require a major rehaul of the system: a win-win for employees and organizations looking to retain talent, says Towry, where the gains significantly outweigh the effort involved. Thinking in Dollars, Not Percentages To put this idea to the test, Towry, Schuhmacher, and Gunnell enlisted Goizueta MBA students to participate in a lab experiment, taking on the role of manager at a hypothetical bank. Participants were given the salary details of four high-performing employees—two male, two female—with gender discrepancies baked into initial pay. Importantly, in this setting, male and female employees do the same job and perform equally well. Participants were divided into two camps: the first instructed to hand out percentage raises, the second dollar raises. All participants had to allocate the same pay raise budget of $30,800—5% of total salaries—among the two male and two female employees, the sole difference being that one group received a percentage budget, while the other group received a dollar budget. The results support the theory, says Towry. When participants use percentages, the individual pay raises cluster around the 5% mark, meaning that existing pay gaps are perpetuated. Kristy Towry, Professor Emerita of Accounting “Our fictional male employees, Jason and Gary, walk away with higher overall raises than Martha and Sarah, because they are already earning more than the women,” says Towry. “And this happens even though our participants know about initial pay discrepancies, and women and men perform equally well in the same job.” When participants use absolute dollars, however, this clustering effect around the 5% mark disappears. Participants give pay raises that better reflect employees’ value contributions to the organization. As such, pay raises are less dependent on initial pay gaps. In some cases, participants even award more cash to the women than the men to counteract the initial gap. “Martha ends up with a higher raise than Gary, but their initial salaries are $116,000 and $192,000, respectively,” says Towry. “So, what we’re seeing here is that our managers are asked to take out the percentage and think in dollars, they effectively redress the balance. The preexisting pay gap is reduced in recognition of equal merit.” Reproducing this in real-word settings shouldn’t be difficult for organizations. And at a time when gaps are becoming more entrenched and progress on equitable pay is stagnating in the United States, there is a clear imperative ahead of employers interested in sending clear signals to existing and future male and female talent, says Schuhmacher. Pay that reflects performance fairly is inherently meritocratic and we know that being a meritocracy is attractive to employees—to your existing workforce and to the workforce that you want to attract. Karl Schuhmacher “When people know they’re being evaluated based on their results, regardless of their gender or background, they are more motivated to work hard,” says Schumacher. “The beauty of this solution is that it supports a more meritocratic way of rewarding talent. It’s also easy to implement—easier than interventions like bias training or organizational audits that consume time and resources. Using dollars instead of percentages is something that organizations can do that translates into real impact. And it’s something that they can do in a day. Our advice: start tomorrow!”

May 14, 2026

7 min

Expert Insight: The Hidden Costs of Staying Neutral

Considering the number of hot-button issues and divisiveness in American culture, choosing a middle-of-the-road attitude might be seen as the best way to navigate an often volatile environment. But what about those individuals who choose neutrality as a means of staying below the radar and, thereby, avoiding the need to take any action? This is the question that Laura Wallace, assistant professor of organization and management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, and coauthors ask in their new paper, The Preference for Attitude Neutrality. Published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, the researchers explore individuals with a preference for neutrality and how their uncompromising commitment to neutral opinions, not only discourages rigorous debate but could have a deleterious impact on society. Emory Business recently caught up with Wallace to discuss her research. Emory Business: What sparked your interest in the preference for neutrality? Wallace: When we think about the problems in the world, often people point to too many extreme opinions as the source of much social ill, and, of course, they can be. But, when I thought about a lot of the issues that I cared about, like addressing climate change or gun violence, I felt that sometimes the issue was too much neutrality in the face of issues that were themselves pretty extreme. When I talk about this work, people can often picture someone who seems like a “Pref Neutral,” as we have affectionately nick-named them, that is someone who in the face of information suggesting that there is an extreme problem is not moved to address the issue. I could think of people in my life who had these reactions, and I was interested in understanding more about them. Emory Business: How did you identify these individuals? Wallace: We developed a scale to assess the extent to which people view neutrality as truer, more socially desirable, and more moral. For example, we ask people how much they agree with items like, “If you have all the facts about a topic, your opinion will generally end up somewhere neutral” and “There is something noble about remaining in the middle about controversial topics.” The more someone agrees with these items, the more we would say they have a preference for neutrality. Emory Business: How does this study fit in with your larger body of work? Wallace: I generally think of my program of research as studying the “psychology of social change.” Within that broad category, I study 1) how to change minds and build trust and 2) how to address societal disadvantage. I view this work as fitting in the first bucket about how we change people’s minds. What interests me about people who are high in the preference for neutrality is the fact that they seem to NOT change their minds in the face of extreme information suggesting that they should. These individuals represent a significant barrier to our ability to address pressing issues, so I view this work as very much tied into the overarching goal of my research program to understand social change (or the lack thereof). Laura Wallace is an assistant professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Wallace studies how to build trust with implications for addressing societal disadvantage, changing minds, and fostering growth. View her profile Emory Business: Would you describe a preference for neutrality to be a mindset, strategy, or attitude/value? Wallace: I think of the preference for neutrality like an ideology or value system that guides people’s reactions across many issues and situations. Emory Business: Talk about the study design. It’s quite detailed and multilayered, with eight hypotheses and six different measures to account for potential bias that were then randomized to create different questionnaires given to a large pool of individuals. How did the coauthors agree on the structure? Wallace: First, I should take the opportunity to shout out Thomas Vaughan-Johnston, who led this work. He is a faculty member at Cardiff University and is just a very thoughtful, interesting researcher, and he’s great to work with. Second, there are a number of studies in the paper. For each, our research team worked together to design and interpret the studies. The paper paints a relatively negative view of Pref Neutrals. We did take measures to resist bias in our design. For instance, we didn’t just ask people how much they dislike extremists (which would have been biased towards making those with a preference for neutrality look bad), but also asked about attitudes towards neutrals (where those with a preference for neutrality may seem like “the nice people”). We are now starting research on contexts where a preference for neutrality can offer some advantages, hopefully without artificially striking a false balance. For instance, we are considering whether they can help reduce group polarization effects, especially where groups drift towards radicalism in conversation. Also, we have some preliminary data where they seem to be a bit more accurate when detecting neutral emotions and attitudes in others, which is a remarkable plus side. Basically, we think the preference for neutrality is a social concern, but we are trying to be fair-minded when considering why they think this about neutrality and when this trait is useful for the world. Emory Business: In the study, you note that preference for neutrality can be a sign of arrogance and that Pref Neutrals are uninterested in learning more or changing their stance. How is this arrogance exhibited? Wallace: I would say that they are more close-minded than arrogant and that they don’t seem to be particularly thoughtful. One way we have assessed this is by measuring their “intellectual humility,” which essentially captures how much people recognize the limits of their own perspectives and are open to changing their minds. Pref Neutrals tend to score low on intellectual humility. They also score a little low on the “need for cognition,” which captures how much people like to think. Emory Business: In one section it reads: “preference for neutrality (preference for extremity) should relate to seeing other people as moral, competent, and likeable, when those individuals have generally neutral (extreme) opinions.” Does this mean that they align with people who have their same opinion structure? Wallace: We find that people who score high on the preference for neutrality scale tend to have more favorable impressions of others who are more neutral and tend to be more persuaded by others who are labeled as holding neutral attitude positions. Emory Business: How would one identify this trait in a person, particularly, when the research shows they tend to self-censor? Wallace: In general, they are really hesitant to take stances on issues or they tend to avoid taking sides or expressing strong positions. And yes, they tend to self-censor, meaning they often avoid sharing their opinion at all. Emory Business: How does this preference for neutrality play out in a political sense? Specifically, if they are averse to extremes would they vote based on their values? Wallace: We have a lot of evidence that Pref Neutrals tend to be political centrists. We don’t have evidence for this, but I suspect that they sit out a lot of elections, and to the extent that they do vote, they favor more moderate candidates. They probably would not vote for a position or individual with an extreme view unless it was framed as neutral. This may sound like a silly, cerebral point, but I actually think it’s critical to the point we are making, as what is viewed as “extreme” in a given time is often socially determined. For example, now it would be viewed as an extreme stance to support slavery. However, in the early 1800s in the U.S., it would have been viewed as an extreme stance to oppose slavery. I imagine at the time, many Pref Neutrals were supportive of slavery as a means of being politically moderate. Emory Business: What was the most interesting result in this study for you? Wallace: We find that if you give Pref Neutrals the exact same information but label it as extreme or neutral, they are more persuaded by the exact same information when it is labeled as neutral. This results in a kind of ironic effect where they actually end up with a more extreme opinion when information has been labeled as neutral. Emory Business: Research wise, what’s next for you? Wallace: There are a few ways that we are following up on our work that I am excited about: First, we’re trying to understand more about how Pref Neutrals maintain neutral opinions in the face of extreme information. So, we are giving Pref Neutrals true, extreme facts, and then examining their thoughts to determine how they resist taking the extreme positions information would suggest that they should. Second, we thought that Pref Neutrals would be particularly likely to trivialize social issues, to say they are unimportant. We are actually finding that they rate all social issues as extremely important, which we are trying to understand more about. We suspect they might do this as a strategy to avoid taking action on social issues. If stubbed toes and human trafficking are both “extremely” important, then there are just too many issues to take action on, and so they are able to justify a lack of action. Third, we are interested in understanding what it is like to make decisions in a group with a Pref Neutral. There is a lot of evidence that groups tend to make bad decisions because people want to agree with each other. This might actually be an area where Pref Neutrals would shine – the fact that they don’t want to take a stance may force groups they are a part of to really think things through and make better decisions. This is all super preliminary, but it reflects the exciting work ahead and that there is much more to understand about these folks!