Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I’ve tried several techniques to be more organized and productive—to-do lists, time-management apps, keeping a journal. But switching between all these methods only makes things more confused. How do I figure out the best productivity system for me?

—Wesley 

Behavioral economists refer to this kind of overplanning as structured procrastination. Juggling productivity tools and platforms makes us feel we’re making progress, when in fact they’re just another way of distracting us from our work.
To avoid this, take an experimental approach: Pick one time-management method and use it exclusively for a month. When the month is up, ask yourself if you really need a different method or extra tool. By committing to a single method and giving it time to work, you’ll be able to find out which productivity tools suit your needs and which just waste your time.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I’m an actor in a local theater company, and sometimes we perform at benefit events for nonprofits that only pay a small stipend. In those cases, I always donate the money back to the group. But recently I was in a benefit where the play was so popular that we gave a number of extra performances, and the fee I received was significant. This time I find myself resisting the idea of donating the money, even though I never expected to earn anything from the play. Why do I feel so reluctant and how can I overcome it?

—Carol 

We all enjoy the warm glow we get from being generous, but that feeling tends to diminish as the amount of money we give increases. Donating $500 doesn’t feel 10 times as good as donating $50, while the pain of giving up the larger sum is much more noticeable. The best way to avoid this problem is to commit to a donation policy in advance, rather than to evaluate each individual gift. For example, you could tell your theater’s manager that you want to donate all your stipends from benefit performances for the coming year and even ask for a certificate or receipt. That way you won’t feel tempted to change your mind each time.

___________________________________________________

Hi, Dan.

I have a 12-year-old son, and when I looked at his social media accounts last week, I was shocked to see how many ads and solicitations he receives. I’ve already talked to my son about more serious internet dangers, but how can I teach him to resist the pressure to throw away money online?

—Sadaf 

Instead of telling your son how these solicitations conflict with your values as a parent, try pointing out how they conflict with his own values. A clever 2016 study by behavioral scientist Christopher Bryan and colleagues found that adolescents could be convinced to avoid unhealthy snacks by framing it as a way of standing up against the deceptive advertising practices of junk food companies. Similarly, asking your son to take a stand against manipulative online solicitations will help him feel that he’s striking a blow for his own independence rather than obeying a parental rule.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I often get mailers from environmental charities containing items such as address labels, note pads and greeting cards, along with a request for a contribution. Do these freebies actually increase contributions, or would charities do just as well with a simple request for money?

—Ted 

Charities are usually better off if they avoid offering incentives like gifts, premiums and raffles. Such rewards encourage us to think about donating as an exchange, raising the question of whether a sheet of address labels is really worth $50. The question the environmental charity should be asking is whether the future well-being of the planet is worth $50. Instead of focusing on transactions, charities do best when they connect with people on the level of identities and values.

___________________________________________________

Hi Dan,

During a pandemic, wearing a mask in public places is an easy way to promote the common good. What makes some people so vehemently opposed to masks, despite the scientific evidence in favor of wearing them?

—Wayne 

When we justify our own behavior, we often say that it’s the result of careful deliberation about values and benefits. Opponents of wearing masks might argue that they are defending individual liberty against government power or that masks aren’t really necessary to avoid infection. In reality, however, the way we behave is usually governed by what people around us are doing, especially those we perceive as being in our own social group.

This means that if you belong to a community where the norm of mask-wearing hasn’t been established, you’re unlikely to buck the trend by wearing one yourself. But if the norm shifts and mask-wearing becomes expected, most people will change their behavior, regardless of the principled reasons they once gave for not wearing a mask.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

As a teacher in an executive education program, I give my students a lot of advice about how to avoid bad habits and biased thinking. But I find that I often fall victim to these things myself, even though I’m aware of the dangers. Do you find that being a behavioral economist makes it easier to behave rationally?

—Madison 

Behavioral biases affect everyone, including those of us who study them. Biases are like optical illusions: Even when we know what we’re seeing isn’t real, we can’t help seeing it. In my experience, the best strategy is to recognize that I will behave in predictably irrational ways unless I make it easier for myself to act the way I want to.

For example, I want to eat more vegetables, and I know that I’m more likely to actually do it if I find them ready to eat when I open the refrigerator. So I make sure to clean and prepare vegetables in advance, in order to not give myself an excuse to eat something quick and unhealthy instead. Similarly, I know that I’m more likely to go for a morning run if I make an appointment to run with a friend. Designing the right environment for ourselves is the best way to control our own bad tendencies.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I manage a small company, and I want to give my employees a gift that will bring them joy during these difficult times. Any suggestions?

—Maya 

I would suggest gifts that provide a fun experience while fostering a feeling of connection, which we all need nowadays. One option would be to give people a gift card for a takeout meal from their favorite restaurant. That would give your employees a treat and allow them to support a local business they care about.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I live in New Zealand, where we are currently almost Covid-19-free. The border is closed except for New Zealand citizens coming back home, and they have to spend two weeks in isolation in a designated quarantine hotel. Recently, there have been several big news stories about returnees who broke quarantine to go to a supermarket or a liquor store, potentially exposing dozens of people to the virus. What makes people think it’s OK to flout the rules like this?

—David 

Getting people to follow safety protocols during the pandemic is a good example of the economic problem known as the tragedy of the commons. If everyone follows the rules, the whole community benefits. But if one person starts to bend the rules for their own advantage, others will follow suit, until the system falls apart and everyone is worse off. The common danger we’re all in should be an opportunity to increase cooperation and social cohesion, not just in New Zealand but everywhere.

___________________________________________________

Hi, Dan.

As a teacher, I’ve been closely following the debate over whether to reopen schools. My school district closed in March when there were just a handful of cases in the state. Now we have thousands of cases, but the schools are planning to reopen in the fall. Why have people’s perceptions of Covid-19 risk changed so much in the last few months?

—Ashe 

Deciding whether to reopen schools involves balancing many factors—not just the quality of remote versus in-person instruction but student’s need for school lunches and the economic burden of child care on working parents. Our perception of risk, however, has been affected over the last five months by what psychologists call habituation. When Covid-19 began to spread, the unknown nature of the virus and the rapid increase in hospitalizations and deaths created widespread fear, making people very unwilling to take risks.

That level of alarm is hard to sustain. In general, people adapt to new realities surprisingly quickly. The danger of Covid-19 hasn’t gone away—in fact, in many places it’s worse than ever—but we soon stop paying as much attention to frightening statistics and headlines. We may start lowering our guard in small ways—forgetting to wear a mask or leaving our “bubble” to visit a parent or friend. When it comes to schools, the benefits of reopening now feel bigger to many people than the dangers, simply because we’ve gotten used to living in a risky environment.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

My workplace hosts weekly virtual happy hours over Zoom. It’s a nice idea in principle, but the meetings have been dull and awkward—we usually just end up talking about the latest coronavirus news. Is there a way to encourage better, deeper conversations?

—Josh 

The problem isn’t that your co-workers are unusually boring; rather, it’s the social norms for your meetings. Research has found that people usually gravitate toward small talk even when they crave connection because sharing important things about ourselves can be socially risky. Talking about unimportant things carries zero risk, but it also doesn’t offer much personal or social benefit.

I was part of a team of researchers working on how to foster deeper connections, and we designed an experiment involving 300 people at a networking event for financial advisers. Some of the participants were asked to socialize as they usually do, while others were given conversation cards with probing questions to ask, like “If you had to change one big decision you’ve made, what would it be?” or “What don’t you tell people on a first date?”

The results showed that those who asked deeper questions had more meaningful discussions. You could try something similar in your Zoom happy hours by giving everyone a question to ask their colleagues. To get started, take a look at psychologist Arthur Aron’s list of 36 “closeness-generating” questions, such as “Would you like to be famous? In what way?” and “What would constitute a perfect day for you?”

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I’m a professor at a state university where the majority of the student body is white, even though our state is much more diverse. Does behavioral science offer any tools for increasing minority enrollment?

—Dylan 

Many institutions are trying to fight racial bias with specialized training for employees. But training in any subject seldom solves the real problem, since there’s a big gap between knowing the right thing to do and actually doing it. Instead, try looking at the problem from the point of view of prospective applicants, to help you understand what’s discouraging minority students from applying and enrolling.

This involves what my lab calls “behavioral mapping.” Imagine that you are a high-school senior and create a detailed map of every decision and task that’s involved in the application process: choosing to apply, taking tests, filling in forms, paying fees, visiting campus and so on. This process will help you identify obstacles that keep students out even before they get to the admissions committee. To achieve racial equity, removing structural barriers is just as important as fighting explicit bias.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

What is something that has surprised you as you’ve adjusted to life in the pandemic?

—Nia 

The biggest change in my routine has to do with staying home all the time. I used to travel a few times a week, and I haven’t been on a plane since early March. The isolation is challenging, but having a consistent home environment has helped me reinforce good habits, like eating better and going to bed earlier. I already knew the research about how a stable environment is good for establishing routines, but now that I’m experiencing it myself I’m surprised to see what a big difference it makes.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I used to buy coffee every day on my way to the office, but for the last three months I’ve been making it at home. Now I’m commuting again, but I find I don’t miss the coffee shop, and I’ve stopped going. Do you think the habits people formed during the lockdown are going to last?

—Nancy 

The interruption of everyday life has been an experiment showing that habits aren’t just desires; they’re behaviors cued by reminders in our environment. When we change the way we interact with our environment, a lot of seemingly ingrained habits fade away. Some of them are things we’re better off without, like thoughtless consumption and spending, but a lot of people are also having trouble maintaining good habits, like eating well, sleeping regularly and staying in touch with friends. Re-establishing those habits is going to take a conscious decision, but I believe that once we return to our familiar environments and activities, most people will return to their old routines—including buying coffee on the way to work.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I’ve been working from home since the pandemic began, and by now I feel like I’m in work mode all the time. Since my living room is my office, there’s always a temptation to answer one more email or work on one more project, even at night and on the weekend. How can I restore some kind of work/life balance?

—Jordan 

In ordinary times, it’s easier to separate work and life because they happen in different places. Now that home and office are the same for many people, one way to create a psychological distance between them is through an artificial commute—an idea that Nina Bartmann, a senior researcher in my lab at Duke, has written about for the website of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. By taking a 20-minute walk at the start and end of your workday, you signal your brain when you are shifting into work mode and when you are leaving it behind. Other techniques include changing into work clothes when you’re at your desk, moving your work station to a dedicated room and shutting down your computer at a designated time each day.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

It’s always been my plan to get an advanced degree, and this spring I was accepted into graduate school. But with the pandemic causing so much uncertainty, I’m starting to wonder if I should make such a long-term commitment. Does it make sense to re-evaluate my plans or should I stick to them?

—Paul 

Research on how people make decisions shows that we usually don’t stop to think about our actions; we make choices automatically rather than deliberately. From this perspective, the current uncertainty might be a gift. People have a chance to reflect on their life plan and ask if it’s still what they really want, whether that means starting a family, buying a home or choosing a career. To help you decide about graduate school, try writing down a detailed blueprint for what you want your life to look like when the pandemic is over. That will help you clarify what steps you can take now to reach your goal.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Hi, this is Dan Ariely, I am trying to understand how people think about the coronavirus. From time to time, I will add surveys here. If you have five minutes, please answer the survey below as truthfully as you can. We don’t know the real answers to some of these questions about the virus, so please just give me your best estimate.

https://duke.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Mf8i0bG73aUjyt

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I know that because of the coronavirus we are supposed to stop shaking hands. But when I meet someone I find myself doing it anyway, mainly because it would be awkward to suggest a different form of greeting. Any suggestions?

—Miguel 

When you’ve just met someone, there’s no time for a discussion about the coronavirus before you shake hands, and you don’t want to imply that you suspect the other person might be infected. What we need now is a substitute—something we can all do without thinking too much about it or causing offense.
During the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the Nigerian government discouraged handshaking to reduce the spread of the disease. Instead, they introduced the “Ebola handshake,” where people bend their arms and bump elbows. This approach recognized that it’s not enough to tell people what not to do; you also have to give them an alternative.

Now that technique is catching on in the U.S. Last week, Vice President Mike Pence was photographed greeting Washington Gov. Jay Inslee by bumping elbows. A video from Wuhan, where the pandemic originated, shows another approach: Two men say hello by tapping their feet together, a move dubbed “the Wuhan Shake.” If we adopt one of these new techniques in the U.S., however, let’s not call it the “coronavirus handshake,” because we might want to have it in store for future viruses as well.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

My son is a high-school senior who frequently misses the bus. Every morning I try to wake him up several times, but I often can’t get him out the door on time. When he misses the bus and I have to drive him to school, I end up reprimanding him, which makes him angry. How can we solve this problem?

—Alice 

People learn behaviors by making associations, either consciously or subconsciously, between an action and a response. Even though you’re trying to help your son, your response when he oversleeps reinforces his bad behavior. Every time you wake him up and drive him to school, he is learning that he has a viable backup if he ignores his alarm clock. My recommendation is to stop helping him get to school on time: Don’t wake him up and don’t offer to drive him. After a few painful failures, he should learn that he needs to go to bed earlier and respond more diligently to his alarm clock.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I’m a committed vegan, but whenever I tell people they tend to have a negative reaction. Is there something about veganism that turns people off?

—David 

A recent study by Vlad Chituc, a doctoral student in psychology at Yale, found that people tend to dislike vegans because they give the impression of thinking that they are morally superior. Vegans can defuse this reaction, however, if they say they are avoiding animal products for health reasons rather than ethical ones. So next time the subject comes up with a new acquaintance, try emphasizing this aspect of your diet, at least to begin with.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I shop at two different grocery stores. One charges a nickel for paper bags, while the other gives me a nickel when I bring my own bag. Which approach is more likely to reduce paper-bag use?

—Paul 

The general question you’re raising is whether punishment or reward is better at motivating us to change our behavior. Punishments are very powerful for motivating people to do something that they only have to do once—for example, installing a smoke alarm in their house or immunizing their children.

But when it comes to repeated behaviors, positive rewards are more effective. In a study conducted in a New York hospital in 2011, researchers found that when physicians were given positive feedback for washing their hands regularly, compliance with the hospital’s handwashing policy rose from 10% to 90%. I suspect that the same principle would hold here: Offering shoppers a credit for bringing their own bag should yield better results.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

Religion is supposed to make people behave better, but do more religious societies actually have less unethical behavior and crime?

—Chad 

I wish it was that simple. Research suggests that religion can play an important role in fostering ethical behavior, but its effects aren’t consistent across the board. A recent paper in the journal Psychological Science examined crime data from 1945 to 2010 for over 170 countries and found that as religious affiliation went down, homicide rates tended to go up—but only in areas with relatively low aggregate intelligence scores. How causation works among these variables isn’t clear, but I suspect that areas with higher intelligence scores are more likely to have institutions such as schools and community organizations that help to foster ethical behavior. So while religion isn’t the only factor, some kind of strong social institutions are crucially important for curbing our worst impulses.

___________________________________________________

Hi, Dan.

We all know that we’re going to die one day, but most people don’t prepare wills or make guardianship plans for their children. Is there a way to motivate people to take estate planning seriously?

—Shani 

Making a will forces us think about an event that we don’t want to imagine, to make complex decisions we prefer not to deal with, and to plan for something that feels very far away. All these factors encourage us to procrastinate. But while we experience painful feelings when we think about estate planning, the pain for our survivors is much larger if we don’t make a will.

My research lab at Duke works with a startup called GivingDocs that tries to overcome these obstacles. Before making a will, it asks people to think about the legacy they want to leave behind and the causes they care about, then helps them to plan bequests to the charities that matter to them. This general approach—combining a painful act with distant results, like creating a will, with something that’s immediately meaningful, like donating to charity—is a good way to get people to overcome their tendency to procrastinate.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

My partner and I are students, and we have very different approaches to dealing with money. My policy is to spend less than I earn and invest my savings for the long term. But my partner feels that since we will both be earning more money after we graduate, we should spend freely now and enjoy the moment. Is there any way to avoid fighting about this issue?

—Mathieu 

The bad news is that our preferences about spending and saving can be difficult to change. That’s why most divorced couples name finances as one of the major reasons for their split. The best way to avoid that fate is to recognize that you and your partner can’t change each other. Instead, you should minimize areas of conflict.

Try setting up a joint bank account in which you can both deposit your paychecks. Use that account to pay shared expenses such as rent and utilities. In addition, you should each have individual accounts for discretionary spending, into which you can transfer a fixed amount from your joint account every month. That money can be used for spending or saving as you see fit. You may still disagree, but this way you’ll only be arguing about the smaller amounts in your individual accounts, which limits the size of the problem. And remember, the goal of money is to buy happiness. If you keep fighting about it, what’s the point?

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

I work for a tech company as a software engineer. Our bonuses are tied to quarterly evaluations, which means that managers are much more likely to reward short-term gains than ideas that take a year to generate results. Since the introduction of this bonus structure, I’ve been concentrating much more on short-term projects with visible results. Am I really doing the right thing for the company, or am I just gaming the system to get paid more?

—Justin 

There’s no question about it: Your strategy is designed to make more money for you personally, but it will hurt the company in the long term. When the company created this bonus structure, they probably thought it made sense, because short-term results are easier to measure. But it is counterproductive if employees become less motivated to take on riskier, more ambitious projects with potentially higher payoffs. It’s hard to ignore a bad incentive structure, so if I were you I would try to convince management to change it and measure the things that matter, even if they are complex or hard to quantify.

___________________________________________________

Hi, Dan.

Do you think New Year’s resolutions have any value, given that most people don’t keep them?

—Molly 

I do, but they’re just a start. To get a resolution to stick, we need to make the desired behavior automatic. For instance, if you want to exercise more, build a very simple habit: Every Tuesday at 5 p.m., go to a group exercise class after work. Ideally it will be something you find enjoyable and rewarding, so that the habit is more likely to stick. The more you repeat a behavior in the same context at the same time, the more automatic it will become and the less you’ll have to rely on willpower. For a good introduction to the research on this topic, I recommend Wendy Wood’s recent book, “Good Habits, Bad Habits: The Science of Making Positive Changes that Stick.”

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s my Q&A column from the WSJ this week — and if you have any questions for me, you can tweet them to @danariely with the hashtag #askariely, post a comment on my Ask Ariely Facebook page, or email them to AskAriely@wsj.com.

___________________________________________________

Dear Dan,

One of my credit cards bears the words “member since 1989.” The truth is that I haven’t used this card in years, even though I pay a $95 annual fee for it. But I can’t seem to bring myself to cancel it, simply because of that “member since 1989”! It feels like I would be giving up a status I’ve been building for 30 years. Why is it so hard for me to make what is clearly the rational financial decision?

—Arielle 

You’re suffering from what economists call the “sunk cost fallacy.” To understand how this works, imagine you have spent 15 hours writing a new book, and you have 50 more hours to put in before you’re finished. Then you learn that someone else’s book on the exact same subject will be coming out next week. Should you keep working on your book for another 50 hours? Most people would say no—why spend so much time on a project that is unlikely to be successful?

But now imagine that instead of 15 hours, you have invested 1,500 hours in writing your book. In that case, would you put in another 50 hours to get it done? Now most people would say yes—if you’ve already spent 1,500 hours on something, why not put in the last 50 to finish it?

In both cases you are being asked to make the same amount of effort for the same doubtful result. But when you’ve invested a lot of time—or a lot of money—it’s hard to make the rational decision to write off your sunk cost and shift your resources to something better.
You’re facing a similar problem when it comes to your credit card. To make the decision clearer, ask yourself if you would keep paying for the card if it only said “member since 2019.” If your answer is yes, then keep it; if the answer is no, it’s clear that you are a victim of the sunk cost fallacy and you should cancel the card now, before that cost gets even bigger.

___________________________________________________

Hi Dan,

At least once a day, someone in my office sends an email to the whole company complaining about some small issue: Someone took the wrong lunch from the refrigerator, or someone drank the last of the coffee and didn’t make a new pot. I find it really annoying. Is there a way to get people to complain less?

—George 

It seems like it should be simple to convince people to be more patient and polite. But the truth is that it’s much easier to change your own attitude than it is to change the behavior of your co-workers. One approach would be to make a game out of it: Every Monday, make a prediction about how many of these complaints will come your way that week. If your prediction is correct, reward yourself with some small indulgence. That way, you can think about the complaints not just as annoyances but as a way to earn a reward.

See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.