Dr David Smerdon

Senior Lecturer

School of Economics
Faculty of Business, Economics and Law

Overview

Dr David Smerdon is a Senior Lecturer (equivalent to Assistant Professor) in the School of Economics. He primarily works in behavioral and development economics. His research involves theory and modelling, experiments in the lab and field, and microeconometric analysis in order to investigate topics at the intersection of these fields.

David earned his PhD from the Tinbergen Institute and the University of Amsterdam (UvA) as a General Sir John Monash scholar, and afterwards worked as a PODER fellow at Bocconi University in Milan. His research often involves collaboration with non-academic partners, ranging from aid agencies and NGOs like US AID and Save the Children, to tech companies like Chess.com.

Prior to his academic career, David spent three years working for the Australian Department of Treasury as a policy analyst. David is also a chess Grandmaster and has represented Australia at seven chess Olympiads. Combining his passions, David occasionally conducts niche research in chess economics on topics such as gender inequality, cheating, and the life cycle of cognitive performance, supported by organisations such as the World Chess Federation (FIDE) and Chessable.

Research Interests

  • Behavioural Economics
  • Development Economics
  • Migration
  • Game theory
  • Cultural Economics

Research Impacts

David's research motivation is focussed on policy-relevant issues, particularly those where behavioural economics can be applied to social policy. Examples of recent projects include:

  • The social impact of refugee resettlement in Australia
  • Policy solutions to eradicate female genital mutilation in Somalia
  • Predicting when and how harmful social norms can be broken down
  • Understanding the relationship between income inequality and trust within societies
  • The relationship between gendered preferences and cross-country differences in gender equality in competitive environments

Qualifications

  • Doctor of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam

Publications

  • Butterworth, Jade, Smerdon, David, Baumeister, Roy and von Hippel, William (2023). Cooperation in the time of COVID. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916231178719. doi: 10.1177/17456916231178719

  • Smerdon, D., Meyer, C. B., Reizniece-Ozola, D., Rodrigo-Yanguas, M. and Sorokina, A. (2023). Report: 2023 FIDE Gender Equality in Chess Index (GECI). Lausanne, Switzerland; Brisbane, QLD, Australia: FIDE; The University of Queensland. doi: 10.14264/9bb291f

  • Smerdon, David (2022). The effect of masks on cognitive performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (49) e2206528119, 1-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2206528119

View all Publications

Grants

View all Grants

Supervision

  • Doctor Philosophy

View all Supervision

Available Projects

  • Over the past decade, a number of studies in social psychology have reported a “gender equality paradox” in different domains. The general format of the main result in these papers is similar: A significant, negative correlation is reported between the gender equality of a country and the share of women in a stereotypically men-dominated field or trait (for example, the share of STEM graduates who are women). These results are often reported as paradoxical because it might be assumed that countries with stronger rights and opportunities for women would contain more equal representation in typically men-dominated fields. Domains in which gender equality paradoxes have been found include educational choices, occupational choices, personality traits, personal values, academic publishing, participation in tennis and chess, and even the naming of babies.

    The gender equality paradox has thus been used as evidence for biological differences in preferences and skills, most notably by popular commentators such as Jordan B. Peterson. However, most studies that report a paradox have come under some form of criticism, usually because of the reliance on cross-country correlational data or the statistical methods employed.

    The proposed project will:

    • Replicate the results of the main gender equality paradox studies, subject to data availability
    • Check the robustness of the claimed results using cross-country panel data and standard regression techniques, testing the sensitivity of the findings to the inclusion of country-level control variables and specification choices
    • Further check the robustness using machine-learning regression methods
    • Summarise which gender equality paradoxes hold, under which conditions, and how large the effects are (if any)

    This project would suit a student who:

    Readings:

    Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063-31069.

    Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899.

    Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., Niepel, C., & Van Zanden, B. (2021). Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: New integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 168.

    Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. doi:10.1177/0956797617741719

    Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020). The gender-equality paradox is part of a bigger phenomenon: Reply to Richardson and colleagues (2020). Psychological science, 31(3), 342-344.

    Vishkin, A. (2022). Queen’s gambit declined: The gender-equality paradox in chess participation across 160 countries. Psychological science, 33(2), 276-284.

View all Available Projects

Publications

Journal Article

Other Outputs

Grants (Administered at UQ)

PhD and MPhil Supervision

Current Supervision

Possible Research Projects

Note for students: The possible research projects listed on this page may not be comprehensive or up to date. Always feel free to contact the staff for more information, and also with your own research ideas.

  • Over the past decade, a number of studies in social psychology have reported a “gender equality paradox” in different domains. The general format of the main result in these papers is similar: A significant, negative correlation is reported between the gender equality of a country and the share of women in a stereotypically men-dominated field or trait (for example, the share of STEM graduates who are women). These results are often reported as paradoxical because it might be assumed that countries with stronger rights and opportunities for women would contain more equal representation in typically men-dominated fields. Domains in which gender equality paradoxes have been found include educational choices, occupational choices, personality traits, personal values, academic publishing, participation in tennis and chess, and even the naming of babies.

    The gender equality paradox has thus been used as evidence for biological differences in preferences and skills, most notably by popular commentators such as Jordan B. Peterson. However, most studies that report a paradox have come under some form of criticism, usually because of the reliance on cross-country correlational data or the statistical methods employed.

    The proposed project will:

    • Replicate the results of the main gender equality paradox studies, subject to data availability
    • Check the robustness of the claimed results using cross-country panel data and standard regression techniques, testing the sensitivity of the findings to the inclusion of country-level control variables and specification choices
    • Further check the robustness using machine-learning regression methods
    • Summarise which gender equality paradoxes hold, under which conditions, and how large the effects are (if any)

    This project would suit a student who:

    Readings:

    Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063-31069.

    Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899.

    Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., Niepel, C., & Van Zanden, B. (2021). Illusory gender-equality paradox, math self-concept, and frame-of-reference effects: New integrative explanations for multiple paradoxes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 168.

    Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. doi:10.1177/0956797617741719

    Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020). The gender-equality paradox is part of a bigger phenomenon: Reply to Richardson and colleagues (2020). Psychological science, 31(3), 342-344.

    Vishkin, A. (2022). Queen’s gambit declined: The gender-equality paradox in chess participation across 160 countries. Psychological science, 33(2), 276-284.