Why it’s not so weird that so many dentists are named Dennis: a story of conditional probability

Ian Ayers refers to the research by Brett Pelham, Matthew Mirenberg, and John Jones that people are likely to have names that are related to their occupations, places of birth, etc. Pelham et al. write:

Taken together, the names Jerry and Walter have an average frequency of 0.416%, compared with a frequency of 0.415% for the name Dennis. Thus, if people named Dennis are more likely than people named Jerry or Walter to work as dentists, this would suggest that people named Dennis do, in fact, gravitate toward dentistry. A nationwide search focusing on each of these specific first names revealed 482 dentists named Dennis, 257 dentists named Walter, and 270 dentists named Jerry.

In his blog, Ayres referred to this finding but wrote:

To be honest, I [Ayres] am not fully persuaded that either of these results is true.

I think that Ayres is saying this because the effect sounds so large: Even if there really were something going on, could it really explain the difference between 482 and 257, nearly a factor of 2?

Let me repost a simple conditional probability calculation that might put Ayres’s mind at ease:

There were 482 dentists in the United States named Dennis, as compared to only about 260 that would be expected simply from the frequencies of Dennises and dentists in the population. On the other hand, the 222 “extra” Dennis dentists are only a very small fraction of the 620,000 Dennises in the country; this name pattern thus is striking but represents a small total effect. If we assume that 222 of these Dennises are “extra” dentists–choosing the profession just based on their name–that gives 221/620000= .035% of Dennises choosing their career using this rule. I can certainly believe that the naming effect could be as high as .035%.

What percentage of people pick their job based on their name?

And here is my quick calculation that approximately 1% of Americans choose their career based on their first name: Continue reading

Dennis the Denver dentist and Laura the Louisiana lawyer

Susan referred me to an article by Brett Pelham, Matthew Mirenberg, and John Jones, called “Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: implicit egotism and major life decisions.” Here’s the abstract of the paper:

Because most people possess positive associations about themselves, most people prefer things that are
connected to the self (e.g., the letters in one’s name). The authors refer to such preferences as implicit
egotism. Ten studies assessed the role of implicit egotism in 2 major life decisions: where people choose
to live and what people choose to do for a living. Studies 1–5 showed that people are disproportionately
likely to live in places whose names resemble their own first or last names (e.g., people named Louis are
disproportionately likely to live in St. Louis). Study 6 extended this finding to birthday number
preferences. People were disproportionately likely to live in cities whose names began with their birthday
numbers (e.g., Two Harbors, MN). Studies 7–10 suggested that people disproportionately choose careers
whose labels resemble their names (e.g., people named Dennis or Denise are overrepresented among
dentists). Implicit egotism appears to influence major life decisions. This idea stands in sharp contrast to
many models of rational choice and attests to the importance of understanding implicit beliefs.

First off, I’m impressed that they did 10 different studies. Psychologists really take their work seriously! Lots of interesting tidbits (see end of this entry for a few).

Some order-of-magnitude calculations

I’d like now to take the next step and estimate the prevalence of this ego-naming phenomenon. Here are the data for female and male dentists and lawyers (for each category, the count (with expected counts, based on independence of the 2-way table, in parentheses):

Den names La names
Female dentists 30 (21.4) 64 (72.6)
Female lawyers 434 (442.6) 1512 (1503.4)
Den names La names
Male dentists 247 (229.7) 515 (532.3)
Male lawyers 1565 (1582.3) 3685 (3667.7)

Of the 1576 men in the study with names beginning with “Den,” an extra 17.3 (that’s 247-229.7) became dentists. That would suggest that the name effect changed the career decisions of 17.3/1576=1.1% of these “Den” guys. But that’s an overestimate, since the denominator should be much larger–it should be all the “Den” guys, not just the dentists and lawyers.

According to the article, 0.415% of Americans in 1990 were named Dennis. Multiplying by approx 150 million in the labor force yields 620,000 Dennises. Pelham et al. report, “Taken together, the names Jerry and Walter have an average frequency of 0.416%, compared with a frequency of 0.415% for the name Dennis. Thus, if people named Dennis are more likely than people named Jerry or Walter to work as dentists, this would suggest that people named Dennis do, in fact, gravitate toward dentistry. A nationwide search focusing on each of these specific first names revealed 482 dentists named Dennis, 257 dentists named Walter, and 270 dentists named Jerry.” If we assume that 482-(257+270)/2=221 of these Dennises are “extra” dentists–choosing the profession just based on their name–that gives 221/620000= .035% of Dennises choosing their career using this rule.

How to estimate a total effect?

It’s an interesting example of conditional probability. If we accept the basic results of the study–the authors are pretty thorough at handing potential objections–if you meet a dentist named Dennis, it’s quite likely that he picked the profession because of his name. But, an extremely low proportion of Dennises pick a career based on the name.

But, then again, there are other D careers. Presumably there are first-letter effects which are weaker than first-3-letter effects, but are still there. So, Dennises could also become doctors, dogcatchers, etc. It would be interesting to set up a simple model and try to estimate the total effect.

OK, now some more cool results from the Pelham et al. paper: Continue reading

How to get out of the credulity rut (regression discontinuity edition): Getting beyond whack-a-mole

This one’s buggin me. We’re in a situation now with forking paths in applied-statistics-being-done-by-economists where we were, about ten years ago, in applied-statistics-being-done-by-psychologists. (I was going to use the terms “econometrics” and “psychometrics” here, but that’s not quite right, because … Continue reading