Ultimate Cakeoff, Econometrics, and Causality Questions

For reality television and competitive cooking enthusiasts the show Ultimate Cakeoff, produced by TLC, is a real tour de force. The premise: top cake artists and decorators are brought together to compete in creating a cake for some high-profile event. The judges evaluate their efforts based on technical difficulty, adherence to the theme, and aesthetic value, then choose a winning team to receive the $10,000 prize.

Each team has nine hours to produce their ultimate cake. In order to keep the competition interesting and generate some much-needed drama, each episode is broken up by one or two smaller challenges designed to test the team leader's technical skill and speed at a particular cake-related task (such as piping, decorating, carving, etc.) The winner of each mini-challenge can choose one of the other two teams to sit out for thirty minutes.

Nine hours is already a short timeframe to create an award-winning cake - many wedding cakes can take up to a week to construct - so it would seem like losing 30 minutes to an hour would be a serious disadvantage. But, after watching two seasons of Ultimate Cakeoff (a dirty job, but someone had to do it) I noticed something strange: teams forced to sit out didn't seem to lose with any greater frequency. In fact, they often went on to win the competition!

This counter-intuitive trend sparked my curiosity, so I decided to put the question to a statistics program. After collecting data on every episode to find the characteristics of each team, who was forced to sit out, and who won each competition, I was able to find some results. The first regression found that being forced to sit out due to a challenge would increase the chance of winning by about 24%, a statistically significant result. After controlling for the individual attributes of of each participant the statistical significance vanished, and being forced to sit out had no measurable impact on the chance of winning at all (Click here to view the regressions performed, in STATA output format).

What might explain these findings? It would seem that less working time would result in a lower-quality cake, that was less likely to take the prize. Discovering the opposite result is somewhat surprising.

Of course, cake artists forced to sit out were not chosen randomly. The most common reason when choosing who to give a penalty was some variation of "(s)he looks way ahead! Take a break and slow down!" Apparently, cake artists are pretty good at judging each others' progress, and the team that is ahead partway through the competition is often the most talented. Trying to stall them with a penalty may even the field slightly, but not enough to overcome superior cake skills and design.

Admittedly, this is a pretty trivial application for a powerful statistics program. But, there may be some broader lessons for social scientists generally. When human choice is involved few events are truly random, which would be the ideal in an experimental setting. Economists can find some clever ways to mimic a true experiment, but perfect success in that regard still remains elusive. Examining how the data are collected and what selection effects are present is crucial to interpreting statistical results... Otherwise one might be inclined to believe that a shorter work-time makes a better wedding cake!

Shirking, Malingering, and other Unpopular Terms regarding the American labor force

So, the title might be overly sensational.

For an outside observer, finding measures of low conscientiousness on the job (shirking) or active deception to evade work (malingering) is a bit of a challenge, because workers have an incentive to conceal that sort of activity.

This rough study addresses worker injury on the job and attempts to determine whether outside incentives motivate changes in sick time and injury rates. Using some unsophisticated econometric techniques, surprising results are found. Surprising if you think unemployment levels and interest rates will not influence worker absences, anyway.

The paper:

Statistical Fallacy #002: Confusing Correlation with Causation. Does a strong handshake really make you live longer?

Even highly educated and intelligent medical researchers aren't immune to statistical errors. A recent study in the British Medical Journal referenced 33 other studies on personal mobility and life expectancy, and compiled their results. According to Reuters, 

They found simple measures of physical capability like shaking hands, walking, getting up from a chair and balancing on one leg were related to life span, even after accounting for age, sex and body size. 

While the phrase "accounting for age, sex and body size" makes this process sound very objective and scientific, there are obviously a lot of other factors that can play a role in life expectancy. Personal differences, such as leading a more active lifestyle, could cause someone to have both more hand strength and also better health in general which contributes to their longevity.


While statistics saying "the death rate over the period of the studies for people with weak handshakes was 67 percent higher than for people with a firm grip" sound very dramatic, it's hard to say if that relationship is reverse-causal; in other words, having a weak grip may signal your lifespan will be short, but will improving your grip really make you live longer? Probably not, which suggests it's far more likely that a common variable - for example, sitting on the coach all day - causes both weak hands and a lower life expectancy.


Common sense says that working with a stress ball or doing forearm exercises to develop a crushing handshake probably won't substantially reduce your chance of death from heart disease, cancer, stroke, or the other leading causes of death for adult Americans. However, this is exactly the impression given by the Reuters article title "Want to live longer? Get a grip!" Heavens forbid someone took this seriously and developed gorilla-like forearms only to find out their fitness investment had been in vain.

Money Melts the Pounds Away -- an in-depth look at The Biggest Loser outcomes.

No, this is not veiled commentary on my social life.

Obesity is a growing issue in the industrialized world generally and the United States in particular. The science behind obesity is still developing, but the popular culture response has already begun. Reality television, which has previously attempted to resolve our lovelessness, joblessness, and lack of fashion has now begun to confront the ‘American lifestyle.’ 

Television network NBC’s hit reality series “The Biggest Loser” takes a group of overweight individuals and sequesters them in a large housing and gym facility. There, under the oversight of expert personal trainers and medical personnel, they attempt to lose weight as quickly as possible. Taking place within a competitive team setting, at the end of each week the people who lost the least weight risk being eliminated. At stake is $250,000 cash for the winning player and a $100,000 prize for the eliminated player losing the most weight by the finale.

The Biggest Loser's game-show world bears only loose relation to the reality of an average person looking to drop a few pounds. However, its dramatic format and inspiring message have proved a global success, with the creation of Biggest Loser UK, Biggest Loser Australia, and Biggest Winner Arab (to name a few). The American version of the show has produced nine seasons since 2004, with a tenth being filmed as of this writing. 

 

With each contestant’s weight loss announced weekly, this television series provides a wealth of data on weight loss under ideal and controlled conditions. With 6 to 8 daily hours of exercise, a rigidly structured diet organized by top-rate personal trainers along with a strong monetary incentive, participants on The Biggest Loser have every advantage in losing large amounts of weight. Some drop over twenty pounds, or over 5% of their body mass, in a single week. The vast majority go on to change their lives by adopting healthier eating habits and frequent exercise. These results demonstrate weight loss at the absolute limit of human capacity. 

 

While every participant on The Biggest Loser puts in a monumental effort to lose weight, there can only be one winner. Contestants experience different outcomes in weight loss in spite of a generally high standard of effort. There have been many debates in the bio-medical field on whether obesity is caused by genetics, culture, age, or something else entirely, and a consensus has yet to emerge. With its wide demographic variety, The Biggest Loser provides an opportunity to test how these differences impact optimal-scenario weight loss. 

Kitchen Nightmares -- restaurant makeover or yelling contest? Let the numbers decide.

Gordon Ramsay's show, Kitchen Nightmares, has brought hope to the greasy spoons and dirty dive restaurants across America (but mostly New York) for two seasons now. Ramsay made his name first as a soccer player, then gourmet restaurant owner, and now as a TV host to a variety of competitive cooking shows, most notably Hell's Kitchen. He's been named the #1 most successful restauranteur in the world thanks to his kitchen acumen, high standards and vitriolic temper.

For Fox's show Kitchen Nightmares, Gordon Ramsay visits restaurants which are financially floundering and attempts to turn them around. This may mean producing an entire new menu, renovating the décor, or installing state-of-the-art kitchen appliances. In spite of these efforts, many still go belly-up after Ramsay leaves.

Before the show starts, most Kitchen Nightmare restaurants are under a mountain of debt. The stubborn owner of Sabatiello's was over a million in the hole before Gordon Ramsay showed up. Facing such a dismal business scenario, even expert advice can only go so far. Are heavily indebted restaurants doomed to bankruptcy, or is Gordon Ramsay not the miracle worker he's sold as?

With some simple econometrics, we can take a stab at answering that question. Data were collected on the amount of debt, proportion of male owners, and whether each restaurant was still open. After watching the twenty-one episodes from Season 1 (so I like reality TV, sue me) and running it through a regression program, here are the results:

Are minimum wage hikes the answer to recession?

The current economic downturn has caused belt tightening by businesses globally, and much of the hardship has been felt by low-paid workers. In response, many have called for a higher mandated minimum wage. From California and Minnesota to Azerbaijan and Nigeria (just in recent news) the issue has been a political hot-button.

In the economics literature, a consensus has not emerged on whether minimum wages cause unemployment. According to basic economic theory, any binding price floor (e.g. minimum wage laws) will cause a surplus of the good in question. In the labor market, that means unemployment. While politicians and pundits tout the benefits of "a living wage" or the difficulty of living off $8.25 an hour they conveniently ignore those unable to find work as a result. Until relatively recently, this trade-off was at least acknowledged. However, a study conducted by Card and Krueger, which found no impact on the fast food industry in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from a minimum wage increase, fueled a new round of optimism regarding higher price floors on wages. Is economic theory put on hold when discussing the labor market, or is this just too good to be true?

You can read my paper on minimum wages and unemployment here. By comparing state unemployment levels to their unemployment rates in 2008 while controlling for other job-related factors, a positive relationship between minimum wages and unemployment rates was found (it's a riveting read, I promise). It was presented at the SIRC on April 24, 2010.