Creative Dishonesty: Cheat Codes
The Center for Advanced Hindsight at Duke University is
Pleased to Coordinate and Host the Exhibition
Creative Dishonesty: Cheat Codes
on display at 2024 W Main St, Bay C, Durham, NC from
December 3, 2011 to January 31, 2012.
with an opening reception on
December 16, 2011 6 – 10 PM
As a magnanimous gesture of support for artistic ingenuity and creative perspectives, twenty artists were invited to create innovative and engaging artwork in response to research on behavioral economics, dishonesty, and cheating after attending an interactive forum at the Center for Advanced Hindsight.
With no limitation to the style or media of pieces created for “Creative Dishonesty: Cheat Codes,” a portion of the artists, which included sculptors, painters, and photographers, branched out stylistically from their normal medium, while others pushed conceptual boundaries.
Albert Gilewicz, a sculptor, utilized “Ethos” bottled water as the foundation for a sculpture exploring the truth behind branding and corporate marketing, compelling the viewer to confront the reality of selling their morality for the sum total of $0.05 donated to the development of drinkable water sources in Africa.
Artist Kerry Cox created an interactive installation that questions the nature of imagery as “moral” or “immoral” through audience participation. In a similar vein, Bruce Mitchell and Adrian Schlesinger created projects inquire how to classify an image as “art” after mechanical tools are used to enlarge, project, draft, and print.
Meet these artists and many others at the opening reception on December 16th from 6-10 PM! Pick their brains about the relationship between creativity, honesty, cheating, and the “fudge factor”. Join us on Third Friday for delicious food, wine, thoughtful artwork, and lively conversation at the Center for Advanced Hindsight, 2024 W Main St, Bay C, Durham, NC.
An exhibit catalogue, including reflections by the artists alongside responses from the curator and the researchers at the Center for Advanced Hindsight, will be published and available for purchase.
For more information about the Creative Dishonesty project, contact curator Catherine Howard at creativedishonesty@gmail.com.
Tweet 
Like New heights of dishonesty in the government
Every time I think that cheating in the public sector cannot possibly get worse I get amazed.
Here is a report from the New York Times, that I find just unbelievable.
The basic story is that the Interior Department agency responsible for collecting oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use, and sexual misconduct.
I am not going to summarize it but here are my 2 reflections:
1) Will Congress actually do something with these reports and take some action to correct the situation (I suspect not)?
2) Was it relatively easy for the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties to be dishonest given the general lack of morality in the oil and gas industry? In other words, does the lack of ethical behavior in the corporate world also transfer to the government branches that are dealing with these sectors? I suspect that the answer is “yes” and this is very troubling — since the government agencies that need to be more honest are the ones dealing with more corrupt industries.
Sadly yours
Dan
In Defense of Mistakes
In a world that is hyper-brutal and punishing of mistakes, offenses, and missteps – small or large – on both social media and in real life, it might seem odd for me to promote making more mistakes. Yet, I want to make the case for making more and better mistakes.
I am an expert on mistakes. Not just in the purely theoretical or academic sense, but in the real-life sense. When I was nearly 18, an accident disfigured over 70% of my body with burns, removing nearly all functionality from my hands. I spent the next three years in a hospital missing out on many of the normal experiences of young adulthood. It could have filled me with rage, depression, or regret. Instead, it inspired my life’s work studying human behavior and trying to figure out what we can do to make our lives better. (It also inspired my signature half-beard.)
In my professional life, I have conducted countless studies that just didn’t work out the way I assumed they would. I have left positions under complicated circumstances. I had startups that failed. I’ve had interactions with colleagues that I wish had gone differently. Each of these experiences, while very painful at the time, were opportunities for observing myself and human nature. They became experiences of personal and professional growth.
I have also spent the better part of the past three years reliving a set of decisions I made and actions I took over a decade ago, around a now-infamous study of human behavior using car insurance data. Working in partnership with trusted colleagues, I did what was expected and right at the time. When the findings of the original study were called into question years later, we re-tested our assumptions, publishing results that put doubt on the original findings. When issues with the original data set were uncovered, we retracted the paper. Later we re-examined and replicated the findings, and in early 2024 published two papers that show that the effects of signing first matter (links to the papers are at the bottom of this post), but also that they matter in a more nuanced and complex way. Such is the scientific process. (See link to my official statement about this event).
As I was trying to understand what went wrong with the 2012 paper, people were very quick to criticize and question my professional judgment, casting a shadow over my life’s work. “Where did it all go wrong?” I have asked myself many times a day for the last few years. I have looked long and hard, but given that so much time has passed, I have come up empty-handed, and I simply don’t know for sure what went wrong. “Should I have done things differently?” Evidently. But as I examine all my decisions, I feel that I did the best I could at the time. And I’m okay with that.
Do I wish I did not make these mistakes? Of course. And, not at all. I obviously wish I did not make these specific mistakes, but in general, I accept these circumstances and continue to believe wholeheartedly that mistakes are essential to growth and evolution. Which brings me to my argument: We should all be making more and better mistakes.
What do I mean by that? To start, there is no reward without risk. Think about venture capitalists or investors in the stock market. As they approach their portfolios, they know that getting higher returns necessarily means taking greater risk. Risk, in the context of investing, is about investing in both sure things and in long shots.
Sometimes we also take risks to invest in ourselves or try something new – moments in our lives where we take a leap of faith and hope that things will work out. There is an expectation and understanding that some things will work out and some won’t, but overall, we know that we will be better off for having tried. Succeed or fail, the secret to success is charging forward boldly in new directions.
As a professor, I teach students about the logic, or lack thereof, in taking risks. We do case studies on Amazon’s fail-fast approach. We openly analyze past mistakes to learn from them. We talk about fostering cultures that will help us avoid another O-ring disaster.
There are mountains of self-help books and countless life coaches in the world, each telling us in their own ways that it is imperative to live in service of our desires, free of judgments of others and with more forgiveness for our shortcomings. “It’s okay to fall down. You just have to get back up.”
But the case for mistakes does not end here. It is not just about trying more and accepting more mistakes as the price of learning and success.
I am also advocating for better mistakes. What do I mean by better mistakes? We need to do the wrong thing the right way in order to maximize our learning. Specifically, we should aim to make more mistakes from bold action and fewer mistakes from inaction.
Popular wisdom says that when we look at our life in general, we will feel the most regret over the things we didn’t do. And yet, asymmetrical fear of regret leads us to fear mistakes from bold action more than mistakes from inaction, making us less likely to try new things – and more likely to do nothing.
When it comes to making the case for better mistakes, it means that we should be bolder and a little more fearless, by making a particular effort to make more mistakes from action. Taking calculated risks with a clear objective and having the courage to dust ourselves off if these risks don’t pan out. And try again.
Take, for example, the recent testimony of the three university presidents in front of Congress and the rest of the world. There is no question that this was a tragic performance that set academia back years, at a cost of public opinion that will take decades to rebuild. My sense is that these three university presidents should have dusted themselves off and worked even harder to tackle head-on the violence and hatred on their campus. This of course is a tall ask, and some of their efforts, particularly the more novel and creative ones, might have backfired. Yet, they should have taken more risks and tried different and novel approaches that might have contributed to their universities and to our understanding of how to help people to live in peace and civility with each other.
Sadly, the reactions to their testimonies prompted universities to do the exact opposite. Instead, universities now seem to be working hard to do as little as possible in order to fly under the radar. They seem to be largely motivated by a hope that students, faculty, trustees, and donors will soon forget about this particular war, and maybe even stop paying attention to anything that happens in the world altogether.
If we did more of the opposite of doing nothing and instead took bolder risks, would we more frequently experience the pain of erring, hit ourselves over the head, and say, “Why did I do this?” Sure, we would. But by accepting the downsides of bold action, we also increase the chance that we will learn something useful about how to move forward. If universities took bolder risks, maybe they would have lived up to their social mission and helped all of us better understand how to reduce hate, improve dialogue, and more.
At the end of the day, the progress of society and the success of any individual is made based on the totality of actions. And the biggest enemy of progress is fearing mistakes so much that we end up doing nothing.
To be sure, society can’t function without rules, boundaries, and consequences, but they should be proportionate. We must change the way we judge one another, to allow room for rehabilitation, reconciliation, or recompense. We must promote safer environments for failure, growth, and learning. Otherwise, we will motivate subterfuge among those who try and fail, and instill fear among those who might’ve tried but couldn’t stomach the potential aftermath.
For my part, I am planning on many more years of mistakes. I don’t intend to let fear and regret drive my decisions. I want to keep learning and growing. I intend to continue to make my own mistakes, and I even hope to normalize making more of them. I am optimistic enough to believe that as a culture, we can find a way forward that encourages people to take risks, fall down, and then get back up.
In the words of the famous philosopher, Yoda: “Pass on what you have learned. Strength. Mastery. But weakness, folly, failure also. Yes, failure most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is.”
LIVE AND LEARN.
Irrationally yours,
Dan
Links to the papers
Link to the paper “How Pledges Reduce Dishonesty: The Role of Involvement and Identification“: https://tinyurl.com/ycpumrtk
Link to the paper “I Solemnly Swear I’m Up To Good: A Megastudy Investigating the Effectiveness of Honesty Oaths on Curbing Dishonesty“: https://tinyurl.com/53mbn5ws and see also a link to a discussion about this paper: https://youtu.be/AjQ58irCZGg
New Websites — one for each book
Hello to all,
After a lot of work, there is now a small but hopefully useful website for each of my books.
Hopefully, you will find these useful:
Predictably Irrational
The Upside of Irrationality
The Truth About Dishonesty
Irrationally Yours
Dollars and Sense
Payoff
Amazing Decisions
Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum Vitae with links
| Current Appointments | 2008 – Current Duke University, Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics |
| 2016 – Current Visiting Professor, AMC-UvA | |
| 2018-Current Part-time Professor, Aarhus University | |
| 2021-Current Duke University, Division of Behavioral Medicine and Neurosciences in the Department of Psychiatry | |
| Education | Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC Ph.D. Business Administration, August 1998. |
| University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC Ph.D. Cognitive Psychology, August 1996 | |
| University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC M.A. Cognitive Psychology, August 1994 | |
| Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel B.A. Psychology, June 1991 | |
| Other Appointments | 2001 – 2002: University of California at Berkeley |
| 2004 (Summer): Stanford, The Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences | |
| 2005 – 2007: Princeton, The Institute for Advanced Study | |
| 1998 – 2008: MIT, Sloan School of Management | |
| 2000 – 2010: MIT, The Media Laboratory | |
| Other Projects | 2023– Current Consulting Producer The Irrational |
| Published Papers | Alex Landry, Katrina Fincher, Nathaniel Barr, Nick Brosowsky, John Protzko, Dan Ariely, and Paul Seli (Forthcoming), “Harnessing Dehumanization Theory, Modern Media, and an Intervention Tournament to Reduce Support for Retributive War Crimes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Jamie E. Diamond, Lisa Kaltenbach, Bradi B. Granger, Gregg C. Fonarow, Hussein R. Al-Khalidi, Nancy M. Albert, Javed Butler, Larry A. Allen, David E. Lanfear, Jennifer T. Thibodeau, Christopher B. Granger, Adrian F. Hernandez, Dan Ariely, and Adam D. DeVore (Forthcoming), “Access to Mobile Health Interventions Among Patients Hospitalized Within Heart Failure: Insights Into the Digital Divide From the CONNECT-HF mHealth Substudy.” Circulation: Heart Failure. Aaron Nichols, Jordan Axt, Evelyn Gosnell, Dan Ariely (2023), Nature Human Behavior. “A Field Study Examining How Workplace Diversity Impacts the Recruitment of Minority Group Members.” Panagiotis Mitkidis, Hanna Thaler, Sonja Perkovic, Shahar Ayal, Simon Karg, Dan Ariely (2023), Acta Psychologica. “On the Interplay Between Pain Observation, Guilt and Shame Proneness and Honesty.” Panagiotis Mitkidis, Sonja Perkovic, Aaron Nichols, Christian Truelsen Elbæk, Philip Gerlach, Dan Ariely (2023), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. “Morality in Minimally Deceptive Environments.” Vishal N. Rao, Lisa A. Kaltenbach, Bradi B. Granger, Gregg C. Fonarow, Hussein R. Al-Khalidi, Nancy M. Albert, Javed Butler, Larry A. Allen, David E. Lanfear, Dan Ariely, Julie M. Miller, Michael A. Brodsky, Thomas A. Lalonde, James C. Lafferty, Christopher B. Granger, Adrian F. Hernandez, Adam D. Devore (2022), Journal of Cardiac Failure. Rebecca Dyer, David Pizarro, and Dan Ariely (2022), Social Cognition. “They Had it Coming: The Interaction of Perpetrator-Blame and Victim-Blame.” Federico Zimmerman, Gerry Garbulsky, Dan Ariely, Mariano Sigman, Joaquin Navajas (2022), Science Advances. “Political Coherence and Certainty as Drivers of Interpersonal Liking Over and Above Similarity.” Nina Bartmann, Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves, and Dan Ariely (2022), Health Communication. “Does Real Age Feedback Motivate Us to Change our Lifestyle? Results from an Online Experiment.” Ulya Tsolmon and Dan Ariely (2022), “Health Insurance Benefits as a Labor Market Friction: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment.” Strategic Management Journal. Lucia Macchia and Dan Ariely (2021), “Eliciting Preferences for Redistribution Across Domains: A Study on Wealth, Education, and Health.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Joaquin Navajas, Facundo Álvarez Heduan, Gerry Garbulsky, Enzo Tagliazucchi, Dan Ariely, and Mariano Sigman (2021), “Moral Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis.” Royal Society Open Science. Murali Doraiswamy, Mohan M. Chilukuri, Dan Ariely, Alexandra R. Linares (2021), “Physician Perceptions of Catching COVID-19: Insights from a Global Survey.” Journal of General Internal Medicine. Sarah Whitley, Ximena Garcia-Rada, Fleura Bardhi, Dan Ariely, Carey Morewedge (2021), “Relational Spending in Funerals: Caring for Others Loved and Lost.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Mirat Shah, Anna Ferguson, Phyllis Dvora Corn, Ravi Varadhan, Dan Ariely, Vered Stearns, B. Douglas Smith, Thomas J. Smith, and Benjamin W. Corn (2021), “Developing Workshops to Enhance Hope Among Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Oncologists: A Pilot Study.” JCO Oncology Practice. Stephen Spiller and Dan Ariely (2020), “How Does the Perceived Value of a Medium of Exchange Depend on its Set of Possible Uses?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Adi Berliner Senderey, Tamar Kornitzer, Gabriella Lawrence, Hilla Zysman, Yael Hallek, and Dan Ariely (2020), “ It’s How You Say It: Systematic A/B Testing of Digital Messaging Cut Hospital No-show Rates.” PLOS One. Aaron Nichols, Martin Lang, Christopher Kavanagh, Radek Kundt, Junko Yamada, Dan Ariely, and Panagiotis Mitkidis (2020), “Replicating and Extending the Effects of Auditory Religious Cues on Dishonest Behavior.” PLOS One. Jaime Miranda, Alvaro Taype-Rondan, Janina Bazalar-Palacios, Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz, and Dan Ariely (2019), “The Effect of a Priest-Led Intervention on the Choice and Preference of Soda Beverages: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Catholic Parishes.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine. Joaquin Navajas, Facundo Álvarez Heduan, Juan Manuel Garrido, Pablo A. Gonzalez, Gerry Garbulsky, Dan Ariely and Mariano Sigman (2019), “Reaching Consensus in Polarized Moral Debates.” Current Biology. Dar Peleg, Shahar Ayal, Dan Ariely, and Guy Hochman (2019), “The Lie Deflator—The Effect of Polygraph Test Feedback on Subsequent (Dis)Honesty.” Judgement and Decision Making. Catherine Berman, Julia O’Brien, Zachary Zenko, and Dan Ariely (2019), “The Limits of Cognitive Reappraisal: Changing Pain Valence, but not Persistence, during a Resistance Exercise Task.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Darius-Aurel Frank, Polymeros Chrysochou, Panagiotis Mitkidis, and Dan Ariely (2019), “Human Decision-Making Biases in the Moral Dilemmas of Autonomous Vehicles.” Scientific Reports. Dan Ariely, Ximena Garcia-Rada, Katrin Gödker, Lars Hornuf, Heather Mann (2019), “The Impact of Two Different Economic Systems on Dishonesty.” European Journal of Political Economy. Merve Akbas, Sevgi Yuksel, and Dan Ariely (2019), “When is Inequality Fair? An Experiment on the Effect of Procedural Justice and Agency.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Ximena Garcia-Rada, Lalin Anik, Dan Ariely (2019), “Consuming Together (Versus Separately) Makes the Heart Grow Fonder.” Marketing Letters. Haiyang Yang, Ziv Carmon, Dan Ariely, Michael Norton (2019), “The Feeling of Not Knowing It All.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Chang-Yuan Lee, Carey Morewedge, Guy Hochman, and Dan Ariely (2019), “Small Probabilistic Discounts Stimulate Spending: Pain of Paying in Price Promotion.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. Nina Mazar, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely (2018), “If you are going to pay within the next 24 hours, press 1: Automatic planning prompt reduces credit card delinquency.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Julie O’Brien, Rachel Kahn, Zachary Zenko, Jessica Fernandez, and Dan Ariely (2018), “Naïve models of dietary splurges: Beliefs about caloric compensation and weight change following non-habitual overconsumption.” Appetite. Ezra Hahn, Dan Ariely, Ian Tannock, Anthony Fyles, and Benjamin W. Corn (2018), “Slogans and Donor Pages of Cancer Centres: Do They Convey Discordant Messages?” The Lancet. Moty Amar, Dan Ariely, Ziv Carmon, and Haiyang Yang (2018), “How Counterfeits Infect Genuine Products: The Role of Moral Disgust.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Jingzhi Tan, Dan Ariely, and Brian Hare (2017), “Bonobos Respond Prosocially Toward Members of Other Groups.” Scientific Reports. Dan Ariely, Uri Gneezy, and Ernan Haruvy (2017), “Social Norms and the Price of Zero.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Dan Ariely and Aline Holzworth (2017), “The choice architecture of privacy decision-making.” Health Technology. Zachary Zenko, Julia O’Brien, Catherine J. Berman, and Dan Ariely (2017), “Comparison of Affect-Related, Self-Regulated, and Heart-Rate Regulated Exercise Prescriptions: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Adrian Hernandez, Adam DeVore, Zubin Eapen, Dan Ariely, Leslie Chang, and Bradi Granger (2017), “Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Heart Failure Care and Outcomes.” Circulation. Sachin Banker, Sarah Ainsworth, Roy Baumeister, Dan Ariely, and Kathleen Vohs (2017), “The Sticky Anchor Hypothesis: Ego Depletion Increases Susceptibility to Situational Cues.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Janet Schwartz and Dan Ariely (2016), “Life is a Battlefield.” The Independent Review. Neil Garrett, Stephanie Lazzaro, Dan Ariely, and Tali Sharot (2016), “The Brain Adapts to Dishonesty.” Nature Neuroscience. Shahar Ayal, Guy Hochman, Dan Ariely (2016), “Editorial: Dishonest behavior, from theory to practice.” Frontiers in Psychology. Chang-Yuan Lee, Guy Hochman, Steve Prince, and Dan Ariely (2016), “Self-Signals: How Acting in a Self-Interested Way Influences Environmental Decision Making.” PLOS ONE. Daniel Mochon, Karen Johnson, Janet Schwartz, and Dan Ariely (2016) “What Are Likes Worth? A Facebook page field experiment.” Journal of Marketing Research. Heather Mann, Ximena Garcia-Rada, Lars Hornuf, Juan Tafurt, and Dan Ariely (2016), “Cut from the Same Cloth: Similarly Dishonest Individuals Across Countries.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Daniel Mochon, Janet Schwartz, Josiase Maroba, Deepak Patel, and Dan Ariely (2016), “Gain without pain: The Extended Effects of a Behavioral Health Intervention.” Management Science. Elanor Williams, David Pizarro, Dan Ariely, and James Weinberg (2016) “The Valjean Effect: Visceral States and Cheating.” Emotion. Nina Mazar, Kristina Shampanier, and Dan Ariely (2016) “When Retailing and Las Vegas Meet: Probabilistic Free Price Promotions.’’ Management Science. Dan Ariely, Anat Bracha, and Jean-Paul L’Huillier (2015) “Public and Private Values.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Dan Ariely and William Lanier (2015) “Disturbing Trends in Physician Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Balance: Dealing With Malady Among the Nation’s Healers.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Shahar Ayal, Francesca Gino, Rachel Barkan, and Dan Ariely (2015) “Three Principles to REVISE People’s Unethical Behavior.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. Michal Grinstein-Weiss, Blair Russell, William Gale, Clint Key, and Dan Ariely (2015) “Behavioral Interventions to Increase Tax-Time Saving: Evidence from a National Randomized Trial.” Journal of Consumer Affairs. Gadi Gilam, Tamar Lin, Gal Raz, Shir Azrielant, Eyal Fruchter, Dan Ariely, and Talma Hendler (2015), “Neural Substrates Underlying the Tendency to Accept Anger-Infused Ultimatum Offers During Dynamic Social Interactions.” NeuroImage. Francesca De Petrillo, Antonio Micucci, Emanuele Gori, Valentina Truppa, Dan Ariely, and Elsa Addessi (2015) “Self-Control Depletion in Tufted Capuchin Monkeys: Does Delay of Gratification Rely on a Limited Resource?” Frontiers in Psychology. Guy Hochman, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely (2015), “Fairness Requires Deliberation: The Primacy of Economic Over Social Considerations.” Frontiers in Psychology. Zöe Chance, Francesca Gino, Michael Norton, and Dan Ariely (2015) “The Slow Decay and Quick Revival of Self-Deception.” Frontiers in Psychology. Rachel Barkan, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely (2015) “Ethical Dissonance, Justifications, and Moral Behavior.” Current Opinion in Psychology. Kurt Carlson, Jared Wolfe, Simon Blanchard, Joel Huber, and Dan Ariely (2015), “The Budget Contraction Effect: How Contracting Budgets Lead to Less Varied Choice. Journal of Marketing Research. Leonard Lee, Michelle P. Lee, Marco Bertini, Gal Zauberman, Dan Ariely (2015) “Money, Time, and the Stability of Consumer Preferences.” Journal of Marketing Research. Michael Norton, David Neal, Cassie Govan, Dan Ariely, and Elise Holland (2014) “The Not-So-Commonwealth of Australia: Evidence for a Cross-Cultural Desire for a More Equal Distribution of Wealth.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Guy Hochman, Shahar Ayal, Dan Ariely (2014), “Keeping Your Gains Close But Your Money Closer: The Prepayment Effect In Riskless Choices.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v107y2014ipbp582-594.html Cindy Chan, Leaf Van Boven, Eduardo Andrade, and Dan Ariely (2014), “Moral Violations Reduce Oral Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Sarah Ainsworth, Roy Baumeister, Dan Ariely, and Kathleen Vohs (2014) “Ego Depletion Decreases Trust in Economic Decision Making.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Heather Mann, Ximena Garcia-Rada, Daniel Houser, and Dan Ariely (2014) “Everybody Else is Doing It: Exploring Social Transmission of Lying Behavior.” PLOS ONE. Eran Chajut, Avner Caspi, Rony Chen, Moshe Hod, Dan Ariely (2014) “In Pain Thou Shalt Bring Forth Children: Peak-and-End Rule in Recalling Labor Pain.” Psychological Science. Nina Mazar, Botond Koszegi, and Dan Ariely (2014), “True Context-Dependent Preferences? The Causes of Market-Dependent Valuations.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Janet Schwartz, Daniel Mochon, Lauren Wyper, Josiase Maroba, Deepak Patel, and Dan Ariely (2014), “Healthier by Precommitment.” Psychological Science. Carey Morewedge, Tamar Krishnamurti, and Dan Ariely (2014), “Focused on Fairness: Alcohol Intoxication Increases the Costly Rejection of Inequitable Rewards.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Cara Ansher, Dan Ariely, Alisa Nagler, Mariah Rudd, Janet Schwartz, and Ankoor Shah (2013), “Better Medicine by Default.” Medical Decision Making. Francesca Gino, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely (2013), “Self-serving Altruism? The Lure of Unethical Actions that Benefit Others.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Eesha Sharma, Nina Mazar, Adam Alter, and Dan Ariely (2013), “Financial Deprivation Selectively Shifts Moral Standards and Compromises Moral Decisions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Sunita Sah, Pierre Elias, and Dan Ariely (2013), “Investigation Momentum: The Relentless Pursuit to Resolve Uncertainty.” JAMA Internal Medicine. Igor Kotlyar and Dan Ariely (2012), “The Effect of Nonverbal Cues on Relationship Formation.” Computers in Human Behavior. Janet Schwartz, Nortin Hadler, Dan Ariely, Joel Huber, Thomas Emerick (2012), “Choosing Among Employee-Sponsored Health Plans: What Drives Employees Choices?” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Yoel Inbar, David Pizarro, Tom Gilovich, Dan Ariely (2012), “Moral Masochism: On the connection between guilt and self-punishment.” Emotion. Daniel Mochon, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely (2012), “Bolstering and Restoring Feelings of Competence Via the IKEA Effect.” International Journal of Research and Marketing. Rachel Barkan, Shahar Ayal, Francesca Gino, and Dan Ariely (2012), “The Pot Calling the Kettle Black: Distancing Response to Ethical Dissonance.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Steve Hoeffler, Dan Ariely, Patricia West, Rod Duclos (2012), “Preference Exploration and Learning: The Role of Intensiveness and Extensiveness of Experience.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228150318_Preference_Exploration_and_Learning_The_Role_of_Intensiveness_and_Extensiveness_of_Experience Michael Norton, Daniel Mochon, Dan Ariely (2012), “The IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. Janet Schwartz, Jason Riis, Brian Elbel and Dan Ariely (2012), “Inviting Consumers to Downsize Fast-Food Portions Significantly Reduces Calorie Consumption. Health Affairs. Michael Norton, Elizabeth Dunn, Dana Carney, Dan Ariely (2011), “The Persuasive “Power” of Stigma?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Moty Amar, Dan Ariely, Shahar Ayal, Cynthia E. Cryder, and Scott I. Rick (2011), “Winning the Battle but Losing the War: The Psychology of Debt Management. Journal of Marketing Research. Michael Norton and Dan Ariely (2011), “Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely (2011), “The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Mike Norton and Dan Ariely (2011), “From Thinking Too Little to Thinking Too Much: A Continuum of Decision Making.” Cognitive Science. Daniel Mochon, Michael Norton, and Dan Ariely (2011), “Who Benefits from Religion?” Social Indicators Research. Zoë Chance, Michael Norton, Dan Ariely, Francesca Gino (2011), “A Temporal View of the Costs and Benefits of Self-Deception.” PNAS Janet Schwartz, Mary Frances Luce, and Dan Ariely (2011), “Are Consumers Too Trusting? The Effects of Relationships with Expert Advisers,” Journal of Marketing Research. Francesca Gino, Michael I. Norton, Dan Ariely, (2010), “The Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking It.” Psychological Science. Günter Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, Dan Ariely (2010), “What Makes You Click? – Mate Preferences in Online Dating.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics. Elsa Addessi, Alessandra Mancini, Lara Crescimbene, Dan Ariely, Elisabetta Visalberghi (2010), “How to Spend a Token? Trade-Offs Between Food Variety and Food Preferences In Tufted Capuchin Monkeys.” Behavioural Processes. Günter Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, Dan Ariely (2010), “Matching and Sorting in Online Dating.” American Economic Review. Quantitative Marketing and Economics. Dan Ariely and Gregory S. Berns (2010), “Neuromarketing: The Hope and Hype of Neuroimaging in Business.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Dan Ariely and Michael Norton (2009), “Conceptual Consumption.” Annual Review of Psychology. Dan Ariely, Anat Brach and Stephen Meier (2009), “Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially.” American Economic Review. On Amir, Dan Ariely and Leonard Lee (2009), “In Search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency.” Journal of Consumer Research. Dan Ariely, Uri Gneezy, George Lowenstein, and Nina Mazar (2009), “Large Stakes and Big Mistakes.” Review of Economic Studies. Dan Ariely, Shahar Ayal and Francesca Gino (2009), “Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel.” Psychological Science. Marco Bertini, Elie Ofek and Dan Ariely (2009), “The Impact of Add-on Features on Consumer Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 36, No. 1: 17-28. Eduardo Andrade, Dan Ariely (2009), “The Enduring Impact of Transient Emotions on Decision Making.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 109: 1-8. Nicole Mead, Roy Baumeister, Francesca Gino, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Dan Ariely (2009), “Too Tired to Tell the Truth: Self-Control Resource Depletion and Dishonesty.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680601/ On Amir and Dan Ariely (2008), “Resting on Laurels: The Effects of Discrete Progress Markers as Subgoals on Task Performance and Preferences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Vol. 34, No. 5: 1158-71. On Amir, Dan Ariely and Ziv Carmon (2008), “The Dissociation Between Monetary Assessment and Predicted Utility.” Marketing Science. Vol. 27, No. 6: 1055- 1064. On Amir, Dan Ariely and Nina Mazar (2008), “The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 45: 633-634. Dan Ariely, Levy Boaz, Won Chi, Igor Elman, Scott Lukas and Nina Mazar (2008), “Gender Differences in the Motivational Processing of Facial Beauty.” Learning and Motivation. Vol. 39, No. 2: 136-145. Daniel Mochon, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely (2008), “Getting off the Hedonic Treadmill, One Step at a Time: The Impact of Regular Religious Practice and Exercise on Well-being.” Journal of Economic Psychology. Vol. 29: 632-642. Dan Ariely (2008), “Better Than Average? When Can We Say That Subsampling of Items is Better Than Statistical Summary Representations?” Perception & Psychophysics. Vol. 70, No. 7: 1325-26. Dan Ariely and Uri Simonsohn (2008), “When Rational Sellers Face Nonrational Buyers: Evidence from Herding on eBay.” Management Science. Vol. 54, No. 9: 1624- 1637. Boris Maciejovsky, David Budescu and Dan Ariely (2008) “The Researcher as a Consumer of Scientific Publications: How Do Name Ordering Conventions Affect Inferences About Contribution Credits?” Marketing Science. Articles in Advance: 1-10. Dan Ariely, Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008), “Man’s Search for Meaning: The Case of Legos.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Vol. 67: 671-677. Leonard Lee, George Lowenstein, James Hong, Jim Young and Dan Ariely (2008), “If I’m Not Hot, Are You Hot or Not? Physical-Attractiveness Evaluations and Dating Preferences as a Function of One’s Own Attractiveness.” Psychological Science. Vol. 19, No. 7. Rebecca Waber, Baba Shiv, Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely (2008), “Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy.” JAMA-The Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 299, No 9. Jeana Frost, Zoë Chance, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely (2008), “People are Experience Goods: Improving Online Dating with Virtual Dates” Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 22, No. 1: 51-61. Uri Simonsohn, Niklas Karlsson, George Loewenstein and Dan Ariely (2008), “The Tree of Experience in the Forest of Information: Overweighing Experienced Relative to Observed Information.” GAMES and Economic Behavior Vol. 62: 263 – 286. Dan Ariely and Michael Norton (2007), “How Actions Create—Not Just Reveal—Preferences.” TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 12, No. 1: 13 – 16. Dan Ariely and Michael Norton (2007), “Psychology and Experimental Economics: A Gap in Abstraction” Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol. 16, Issue 6: 336 – 339. Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar, and Dan Ariely (2007), “Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products.” Marketing Science. Vol. 26, No. 6: 742-757. Paul Eastwick. Eli Finkel, Daniel Mochon and Dan Ariely (2007), “Selective vs. Unselective Romantic Desire: Not All Reciprocity is Created Equal.” Psychological Science. Vol. 18, No. 4: 317-319. Michael Norton, Jeana Frost and Dan Ariely (2007), “Less is More: The Lure of Ambiguity, or Why Familiarity Breeds Contempt.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 92: 97-105. On Amir and Dan Ariely (2007), “Decisions by Rules: The Case of Unwillingness to Pay for Beneficial Delays.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 44, No. 1: 142-152. Leonard Lee, Shane Frederick and Dan Ariely (2006), “Try It, You’ll Like It: The Influence of Expectation, Consumption, and Revelation on Preferences for Beer.” Psychological Science. Vol. 17, No. 12: 1054–1058. Steve Hoeffler, Dan Ariely and Pat West (2006), “Path Dependent Preferences: The Role of Early Experience and Biased Search in Preference Development.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 215-229. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.379.7852&rep=rep1&type=pdf Michael Norton, Samuel Sommers, Evan Apfelbaum, Natassia Pura and Dan Ariely (2006), “Colorblindness and Political Correctness: Playing the Political Correctness Game.” Psychological Science. Vol. 17, No. 11: 949–953. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01810.x Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely (2006), “Dishonesty in Everyday Life and its Policy Implications.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. Vol. 25, No. 1: 117-126. Gal Zauberman, Kristin Diehl and Dan Ariely (2006), “Hedonic Versus Informational Evaluations: Task Dependent Preferences for Sequences of Outcomes.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Vol. 19, No. 3: 191-211. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.516 Leonard Lee and Dan Ariely (2006), “Shopping Goals, Goal Concreteness, and Conditional Promotions.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 33: 60-70. Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec (2006), “Tom Sawyer and the Construction of Value.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Vol. 60: 1-10. Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein (2006), “The Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Vol.19: 87-98. Dan Ariely, Axel Ockenfels and Alvin Roth (2005), “An Experimental Analysis of Ending Rules in Internet Auctions.” The RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 36, No. 4: 890-907. Baba Shiv, Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely (2005),“Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers May get What They Pay For.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 42, No. 4: 383-393. Michael Norton, Joan DiMicco, Ron Caneel, and Dan Ariely (2004), “AntiGroupWare and Second Messenger.” BT Technology Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4: 83-88. James Heyman and Dan Ariely (2004), “Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets.” Psychological Science, Vol.15, No. 11: 787-793. James Heyman, Yesim Orhun and Dan Ariely (2004), “Auction Fever: The Effect of Opponents and Quasi-Endowment on Product Valuations.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, No.4: 4–21. Jiwoong Shin and Dan Ariely (2004), “Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable.” Management Science, Vol. 50, No 5: 575-586. Dan Ariely, John G. Lynch and Manny Aparicio (2004), “Learning by Collaborative and Individual-Based Recommendation Agents.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1&2) 81-94. Dan Ariely and Gal Zauberman (2003), “Differential Partitioning of Extended Experiences.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 91, No. 2: 128-139. Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec (2003), “Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.118, No. 1: 73-105. Dan Ariely and Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding, Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment and Decision Dynamics in Online Auctions.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.13: 113-123. Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch (2002), “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-control by Precommitment.” Psychological Science, Vol. 13, No. 3: 219-224. Joel Huber, Dan Ariely and Greg Fischer (2002), “Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating and Matching.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 87, No. 1: 66-90. Itzhak Aharon, Nancy Etcoff, Dan Ariely, Chris F. Chabris, Ethan O’Connor and, Hans C. Breiter (2001), “Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value: FMRI and Behavioral Evidence.” Neuron, Vol. 32: 537-551. Dan Ariely and Dan Zakay (2001), “A Timely Account of the Role of Duration in Decision Making.” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 108, No. 2: 187-207. Dan Ariely (2001), “Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties.” Psychological Science, Vol. 12, No. 2: 157-162. Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein (2000), “When Does Duration Matter in Judgment and Decision Making.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 129, No. 4: 508-523. Dan Ariely (2000), “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making and Preference.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 2: 233-248. Dan Ariely and Jonathan Levav (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 3: 279-290. Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 3: 360-370. Dan Ariely, Au Wing-Tung, Randy H. Bender, David V. Budescu, Christine B. Dietz, Hongbin Gu, Tom S. Wallsten and Gal Zauberman (2000), “The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 6: 130-147. Dan Ariely and Gal Zauberman (2000), “On the Making of an Experience: The Effects of Breaking and Combining Experiences on Their Overall Evaluation.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13: 219-232. Dan Ariely and Ziv Carmon (2000), “Gestalt Characteristics of Experiences: The Defining Features of Summarized Events.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13: 191-201. John G. Lynch and Dan Ariely (2000), “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution.” Marketing Science, Vol. 19, No. 1: 83-103. Greg Fischer, Ziv Carmon, Dan Ariely and Gal Zauberman (1999), “Goal-based Construction of Preferences: Task Goal and the Prominence Effect.” Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 8: 1057-1075. Constantine Sedikides, Dan Ariely and Nils Olsen (1999), “Contextual and Procedural Determinants of Partner Selection: On Asymmetric Dominance and Prominence.” Social Cognition, Vol. 17: 118-139. Steve Hoeffler and Dan Ariely (1999), “Constructing Stable Preferences: A Look into Dimensions of Experience and Their Impact on Preference Stability.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2: 113-139. Dan Ariely (1998), “Combining Experiences over Time: The Effects of Duration, Intensity Changes, and On-line Measurements on Retrospective Pain Evaluations.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 11: 19-45. Christina Burbeck, Steve Pizer, Brian Morse , Dan Ariely, Gal Zauberman and Jannick P. Rolland (1996), “Linking Object Boundaries at Scale: A Common Mechanism for Size and Shape Judgments.” Vision Research, Vol. 36, No. 3: 361-372. Jonathan A. Marshall, Christina Burbeck, Dan Ariely, Jannick P. Rolland and Kevin E. Martin (1996), “Occlusion Edge Blur: A Cue to Relative Visual Depth.” Journal of the Optical Society of America: A, Vol. 13, No. 4: 681-688. Reuven Dar, Dan Ariely and Hanan Frenk (1995), “The Effect of Past-Injury on Pain Threshold and Tolerance.”Pain, Vol. 60: 189-193. Dan Ariely and Tom S. Wallsten (1995), “Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 63, No. 3: 223-232. Jannick P. Rolland, Dan Ariely and William Gibson (1994), “Towards Quantifying Depth and Size Perception in Virtual Environments.” Presence, Vol. 4: 24-49. |
| Non-academic papers | Dan Ariely (2009), “The End of Rational Economics.” Harvard Business Review. |
| Dan Ariely (2008), “How Honest People Cheat.” Harvard Business Review. | |
| Dan Ariely (2007), “Customers’ Revenge 2.0.” Harvard Business Review. | |
| Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely (2007). “Dishonesty and its Policy Implications.” The Quest, the Magazine of the Rotman School of Management. | |
| Commentaries | Dan Ariely and Heather Mann (2013), “A Bird’s Eye View of Unethical Behavior: Commentary on Trautmann et all.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. |
| Michael Norton and Dan Ariely (2013), “America’s Desire For Less Wealth Inequality Does Not Depend On How You Ask Them.” Judgement and Decision Making. |
|
| Steffie Woolhandler, Dan Ariely, David Himmelstein (2012),“Why Pay For Performance May be Incompatible With Quality Improvement.” British Medical Journal. |
|
| Rebecca K. Ratner, Dilip Soman, Gal Zauberman, Dan Ariely, Ziv Carmon, Punam A. Keller, B. Kyu Kim, Fern Lin, Selin Malkoc, Deborah A. Small, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2008), “How Behavioral Decision Research Can Enhance Consumer Welfare: From Freedom of Choice to Paternalistic Intervention.” Marketing Letters. |
|
| Dan Ariely, Joel Huber, & Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When Do Losses Loom Larger Than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 42, No. 2: 134- 138 | |
| Baba Shiv, Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely (2005), “Ruminating About Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions.” Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 42, No. 4: 410-414. |
|
| On Amir, Dan Ariely, Alan Cooke, David Dunning, Nicholas Epley, Uri Gneezy, Botond Koszegi, Donald Lichtenstein, Nina Mazar, Sendhil Mullainathan, Drazen Prelec, Eldar Shafir, and Jose Silva (2005), “Psychology, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy.” Marketing Letters Vol. 16, No. 4: 443 – 454. |
|
| Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman and George Loewenstein (2000), “Joint Commentary on the Importance of Duration in Ratings of, and Choices between, Sequences of Outcomes.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 129, No. 4: 524–529. |
|
| Patricia M. West, Dan Ariely, Steve Bellman, Eric Bradlow, Joel Huber, Eric Johnson, Barbara Kahn, John Little, and David Schkade (1999), “Agents to the Rescue?” Marketing Letters, Vol. 10, No. 3: 285-300. |
|
| Books | Dan Ariely, Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things. HarperCollins (September 2023). |
| Dan Ariely & Jeff Kreisler. HarperCollins (November 2017). | |
| Dan Ariely, Payoff. Simon and Schuster, Inc. (November 2016). | |
| Dan Ariely, Irrationally Yours. Harper Perennial (May 2015). | |
| Dan Ariely (Editor) The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Mariner Books (October 2012). | |
| Dan Ariely, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. HarperCollins (June 2012). | |
| Dan Ariely, The Upside of Irrationality. HarperCollins (June 2010). | |
| Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. HarperCollins (February 2008). | |
| Christine Hughes, Dan Ariely and David Eckerman (1998), The Joy of Experimental Psychology, Kendall/Hunt. | |
| Chapters | Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely (2015), “Behavioral Economics in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. |
| On Amir, Orly Lobel, and Dan Ariely (2005), “Making Consumption Decisions by Following Personal Rules” in Ratti Ratneshwar & David Mick (eds.) Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, Routledge Press. |
|
| Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec (2005), “Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences” in Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic (eds.) The Construction of Preference, Cambridge University Press. |
|
| Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec (2005), “Tom Sawyer and the Construction of Value” in Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic (eds.) The Construction of Preference, Cambridge University Press. |
|
| Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec (2003), “Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences” in Isabelle Brocas and Juan Carrillo (eds.) The Psychology of Economic Decisions, Oxford University Press. |
|
| Dan Ariely and Ziv Carmon (2003), “The Sum Reflects only Some of Its Parts: A Critical Overview of Research on Summary Assessment of Experiences” in Roy Baumeister, George Loewenstein and Daniel Read (eds.), Time and Decisions, Russell Sage Foundation Press. |
|
| Johnathan W. Schooler, Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein (2003), “The Pursuit and Assessment of Happiness Can be Self-Defeating” in Isabelle Brocas and Juan Carrillo (eds.) The Psychology of Economic Decisions, Oxford University Press. |
|
| Honors & Awards | 2015: Honorary Doctorate, Erasmus University, Rotterdam |
| 2015: C.W. Park Outstanding Contribution to the Journal of Consumer Psychology Award. With Michael Norton, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely for “The IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love.” |
|
| 2014: William C. Friday Excellence in Leadership and Service Award, North Carolina State University | |
| 2013: William F. O’Dell Award for “The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance.” (2008) On Amir, Dan Ariely and Nina Mazar. | |
| 2012: Honorary Patron, The University Philosophical Society, Trinity College, Dublin | |
| 2012: Honorary Professor, Universidad del Pacifico Lima, Peru | |
| 2012: Contributing Editor WIRED Magazine UK | |
| 2011: Ethel & James Valone Visiting Professor in Plastic Surgery, University North Carolina-Chapel Hill April 1, 2011 | |
| 2011: IBM Faculty Award Recipient | |
| 2010: William F. O’Dell Award for “Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers May get What They Pay For.”(2005) Baba Shiv, Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely | |
| 2009: Psychology Department Distinguished Alumni Award, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | |
| 2009: Finalist for the 2009 Long Term Impact Award from INFORMS Society for Marketing Science for John G. Lynch, Jr. and Dan Ariely “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution” |
|
| 2008: IgNobel Award in Medicine | |
| 2008-2009: President: Society for Judgment and Decision Making | |
| 2003: Society for Consumer Psychology: Early Career Contribution Award | |
| 2002: Rothschild Memorial Symposia, The Institute for Advanced Studies: The 13th Summer School in Economic Theory on behavioral Economics | |
| 2001: Best Paper Award for John G. Lynch and Dan Ariely (2000) “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution” from the Marketing Science Institute |
|
| 2000: Judgment and Decision Making Society: Hillel Einhorn New Investigator Award | |
| 1998: John A. Howard American Marketing Association Doctoral Dissertation Award | |
| 1995-1996: L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory Graduate Student Award | |
| Member | United Nations University International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (2012-2014) |
| The Department of Economics at the University of Zurich Advisory Board, Association for Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Psychology, American Psychological Association, American Psychological Society, Judgment and Decision Making Society |
|
| Former Postdocs & PhD Advisees |
Merve Akbas (Worldchanger at a startup)
Moti Amar (Professor, Ono College Israel) On Amir (Professor, UC San Diego) Lalin Anik (Professor, University of Virginia) Shahar Ayal (Professor, Interdisciplinary Institute Israel) Anat Binur (Venture Capital) Anat Bracha (Researcher, Federal Reserve Bank) Troy Campbell (Professor, University of Oregon) Guy Hochman (Professor, IDC Herzliya) Leonard Lee (Professor, Columbia) Heather Mann (Worldchanger at a startup) Nina Mazar (Professor, University of Toronto) Panos Mitkidis (Professor, Aarhus University) Daniel Mochon (Professor, Tulane) Mike Norton (Professor, Harvard) Janet Schwartz (Professor, Tulane) Kristina Shampan’er (Consultant) Jiwoong Shin (Professor, Yale) Uri Simonsohn (Professor, University of Pennsylvania) S tephen Spiller (Professor, University California, Los Angeles) Aner Tal (Researcher, Cornell University) Jared Wolfe (Professor, Long Island University-Post) |
קצת עליי
קצת עליי בעברית:
היי, אני דן אריאלי, כלכלן התנהגותי וחוקר בתחום הפסיכולוגיה והכלכלה ההתנהגותית. אני מתבונן על ההתנהגות של כולנו ומנסה להבין את הטעויות שאנחנו עושים, מזהה את המקומות שבהם אנחנו פועלים באופן לא רציונלי ומחפש דרכים בהן אפשר לשפר את ההחלטות שלנו. הדברים שגילינו בעזרת המחקרים העשירו את חיי, ואני מקווה שהם יעשירו גם את החיים שלכם.
לפני הרבה שנים נפצעתי קשה, נכוויתי ברוב הגוף שלי, כולל חצי מהפנים. הפציעה הזאת התחילה את המסע שלי להבנת הטבע האנושי.
את חוסר ההגיון וחוסר הרציונליות התחלתי להכיר מקרוב במסגרת בטיפולים השונים שקיבלתי במחלקת הכוויות, במיוחד ה”אמבטיה” היומיומית. הטיפולים הללו אילצו אותי להתמודד עם מגוון התנהגויות לא רציונליות, שחלקן היו כואבות ומתמשכות. כשעזבתי את בית החולים, רציתי להבין מה הצורה הטובה ביותר (או הכי פחות גרועה) לטפל בפצועי כוויות. הטיפולים הם כמובן כואבים ובלתי נמנעים, אבל השאלה היא איך אפשר לעשות אותם באופן שיגרום הכי מעט כאב. עם המחשבה הזו, התחלתי לערוך מחקרים על השאלה הזו.
התוצאות של המחקר הספציפי הזה רמזו שבאופן כללי אנחנו מקבלים שוב ושוב החלטות שגויות בהיבטים רבים של חיינו ושהמחקר יכול לפתוח דלת או חלון ולעזור לנו לשנות חלק מדפוסים אלו.
כמה שנים מאוחר יותר, כשלמדתי יותר ויותר על קבלת החלטות וכלכלה התנהגותית, הבנתי עד כמה הידע הזה רלוונטי בהיבטים רבים בחיינו, החל מקבלת החלטות פיננסיות, דרך בריאות, הרגלים טובים יותר ואפילו חיים אישיים טובים יותר. ברגע שהבנתי שקבלת החלטות טובה יותר יכולה לעזור לנו לחיות בצורה טובה יותר, התחלתי לנסות לשתף את הידע הבסיסי הזה ובעזרתו אולי לעזור לכולנו כדי לשפר את חיי היומיום שלנו.
כמה ראיונות איתי:
זיכרון בסלון
למה מנהלי בנקים הפכו תאוותנים כמו אריות ים שמנים?
הישראלי העסוק בעולם – סוף שבוע – הארץ
אולפן שישי עם דני קושמרו – העולם כולו שואל – דן אריאלי עונה
בראיון לסיגל גפני ב”אנשים”
דן אריאלי עוזר לכם לקבל החלטות בצורה נכונה
מחליטים להחליט | פרופ’ דן אריאלי
מדוע אנחנו מתמכרים ומשקרים? ראיון מיוחד עם פרופ’ דן אריאלי
פרופ’ דן אריאלי על שקרים וכסף
כלכלה התנהגותית בשירות איכות הסביבה – ריאיון עם פרופ’ דן אריאלי
“ארזו חצי מהארוחה מראש”. דן אריאלי: ככה תאכלו בריא יותר
כמה פודקאסטים איתי:
תשובות מסובכות לשאלות פשוטות
איך להשקיע בהון האנושי שלכם?
מה אפשר ללמוד על מוטיבציה
קבלת החלטות
“כל ארוחה אנחנו גומרים עם שוקולד, את החיים אנחנו גומרים בפרק הכי לא טוב שיש”
אנשים בלילה, קובי מידן ובן שני
להחזיר את השליטה על טכנולוגיה עם דן אריאלי
הספרים שלי:
לא רציונלי ולא במקרה
לא רציונלי אבל לא נורא
האמת על באמת
שלך באי רציונליות
שווה לך
איך הכסף עובד עלינו
החלטות מופלאות
בנוסף, הסרט Dis(Honesty) ומשחק הקלפים Irrational Game הם הניסיון שלי להנגיש את ממצאי המחקר לקהל הרחב, כדי שכולנו נוכל בקלות ללמוד על סוג זה של מחקר, לגלות את ההתרגשות והעניין הקיימים בכלכלה התנהגותית, ואולי להשתמש בחלק מהתובנות כדי להעשיר את חיינו.
בנוסף נוסף ואחרון:
ב 2022 הנחיתי תוכנית של ארבעה פרקים בכאן 11, פרומו 1, פרומו 2
הפרקים עוסקים ב: פרק ראשון – שינוי ודעה, פרק שני – חוסר ושוויון, פרק שלישי – ביש ומזל, ופרק רביעי – שקר וכזב
מבחינת תפקידים רשמיים, אני מחזיק בקתדרה על שם ג’יימס ב. דיוק לפסיכולוגיה וכלכלה ההתנהגותית באוניברסיטת דיוק בארצות הברית ומייסד של המרכז למחשבה בדיעבד מתקדמת.
את הזמן הפנוי שלי אני מבלה בעבודה על מדריך למטבח ולחיים – אוכל ללא פירורים: אומנות האכילה מעל כיור המטבח – וכמובן, בלימוד הדרכים הלא רציונליות שכולנו מתנהגים.
מוזמנים לעקוב אחריי בפייסבוק, באינסטגרם, בלינקדין ובאתר בעברית.
About Dan
Hi, I’m Dan Ariely
I do research in behavioral economics and try to describe it in plain language. These findings have enriched my life, and my hope is that they will do the same for you.
My immersive introduction to irrationality took place many years ago while I was overcoming injuries sustained in an explosion. The range of treatments in the burn department, and particularly the daily “bath” made me face a variety of irrational behaviors that were immensely painful and persistent. Upon leaving the hospital, I wanted to understand how to better deliver painful and unavoidable treatments to patients, so I began conducting research in this area.
I became engrossed with the idea that we repeatedly and predictably make the wrong decisions in many aspects of our lives and that research could help change some of these patterns.
A few years later, as I was learning more and more about decision making and behavioral economics, I realized that this knowledge is relevant to many aspects of our life, from financial decision making, to health, to better habits, and even to better personal life. Once I realized that understanding decision-making can help me live in a better way, I started working on how to get all of us to use the same basic knowledge to improve our daily life.
I have very few pictures from my time in hospital but they are too difficult to share this way. But here is a picture of my most recent surgery that took place just a few years ago. In this picture, you can see a plastic Z, which is a way to take a scar and break it so that the skin is a bit more flexible. From all the surgeries I had, it is probably the least complex and the least painful one, but it shows in my mind some of the challenges that come with scars and the brutal beauty that comes with medicine.
Irrationally Yours, Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, the movie Dishonesty and the card game Irrational Game are my attempt to take my research findings and describe them in non academic terms, so that more people will learn about this type of research, discover the excitement of behavioral economics, and possibly use some of the insights to enrich their own lives.
In terms of official positions, I am a Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Center for Advanced Hindsight.
My free time is spent working on a guide to the kitchen and life—Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Kitchen Sink—and of course, studying the irrational ways we all behave.
Download my curriculum vitae »
IRRATIONALLY YOURS
Three-time New York Times bestselling author Dan Ariely teams up with legendary The New Yorker cartoonist William Haefeli to present an expanded, illustrated collection of his immensely popular Wall Street Journal advice column, “Ask Ariely”.
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely revolutionized the way we think about ourselves, our minds, and our actions in his books Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth about Dishonesty. Ariely applies this scientific analysis of the human condition in his “Ask Ariely” Q & A column in the Wall Street Journal, in which he responds to readers who write in with personal conundrums ranging from the serious to the curious:
- What can you do to stay calm when you’re playing the volatile stock market?
- What’s the best way to get someone to stop smoking?
- How can you maximize the return on your investment at an all-you-can-eat buffet?
- Is it possible to put a price on the human soul?
- Can you ever rationally justify spending thousands of dollars on a Rolex?
In Ask Ariely, a broad variety of economic, ethical, and emotional dilemmas are explored and addressed through text and images. Using their trademark insight and wit, Ariely and Haefeli help us reflect on how we can reason our way through external and internal challenges. Readers will laugh, learn, and most importantly gain a new perspective on how to deal with the inevitable problems that plague our daily life.
Ask Ariely: On Dishonest Domains, Warm Rewards, and Sweet Celebrations
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 recently found out that a friend of mine has been having an affair behind her husband’s back for the past four years. She seemed like a person of high integrity to me, but now I’m worried that if she could be so dishonest with her husband, maybe she is also dishonest with me. If a person lies in one area of life, does that make them more likely to lie in general?
—James
The good news for you is that dishonesty in one area of life—such as work or relationships—doesn’t necessarily predict dishonesty in other areas of life. My colleagues and I published a working paper on this topic in 2018, in which we asked participants about their propensity to be dishonest across eight different domains. We found that most people had different standards for moral behavior in different areas of their life. Cheating on financial reports in the office, for instance, did not predict cheating in a poker game with friends.
But being dishonest in one particular area of life did predict other immoral behavior in that same area. With that in mind, I would be careful about getting into a romantic entanglement with your friend.
___________________________________________________
Hi, Dan.
I read that Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency is offering Danish citizens a $300 reward to scrap their old wood-burning stove and buy a new wood burning stove, in order to reduce particle pollution and improve air quality. But I think people should be willing to take such measures without being paid for it, for the sake of the common good and the longevity of the planet. Do you believe people need a financial incentive to help the environment?
—Esben
In this particular case, I think an appeal to the common good would be more effective than payment. By offering citizens cash to replace their stoves, Denmark is encouraging them to think about their decision in financial terms. This means they will ask questions about the cost and efficiency of a new stove and wonder whether it is worth the investment. With only $300 in the balance, a cost-benefit analysis is likely to lead people not to replace the stove.
On the other hand, if the appeal was made on moral grounds, people would have to think about what matters to society and what their duties are as citizens. In that case, the odds of making the change might be higher. Of course, if the government were offering a more substantial amount of money, say $1,000, that would change people’s calculations, but a token payment of $300 is likely to be less effective than offering no money at all.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I will be moving to a new state after living in the same city for more than 50 years. How should I handle this transition?
—Warren
This move will be a major change in your life, and the best thing for you is to acknowledge this and celebrate it. To do this, why don’t you throw a party for your friends and family to celebrate the time you’ve spent together. You can ask each guest to write you a piece of advice about how to create a new life in your new city. That way, the letters will both remind you of your old friends and, if their advice is any good, also help propel you into your new phase. Let the adventures begin.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.
Ask Ariely: On Surveillance Success, Relationship Recovery, and Taste Temptation
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’m seeing many more surveillance cameras in shopping malls, restaurants, roads and even my workplace. I doubt that anyone is watching all these acres of footage, so why should anyone care about being recorded? Won’t the cameras’ ubiquity undermine their effectiveness?
—Bruce
Don’t be so sure. Even if no one is watching the cameras’ video in real time, authorities can still use it after a crime has occurred to figure out who did what to whom. So please don’t start behaving badly just because you’re seeing so many cameras around.
Moreover, from a psychological perspective, surveillance cameras also provide a good mechanism for reminding us about morality. One of the most powerful motivators of honest behavior is our own moral self-evaluations (known to experts as “self-concept maintenance”). When we have other people (or cameras) around, they remind us about the people we want to be, which spurs us to behave more nobly.
An early demonstration of this principle came from research in 1976 by Edward Diener and Mark Wallbom, published in the Journal of Research in Personality, who showed that mirrors reduced academic dishonesty in students by making them more self-aware. In their experiments, students who took an exam in a room decked out in mirrors were less likely to keep writing after the bell rang than those who took their tests in a normal classroom. Similarly, surveillance cameras—particularly if they’re clearly observable—should increase self-awareness and, with it, better behavior.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
My closest friend since childhood recently betrayed me, after decades of trusting friendship. She has apologized sincerely, but all the confidence I had in her is still tainted. Is it rational (or helpful) to forgive people who have hurt us?
—Jamie
While it isn’t clear whether your friendship can fully recover from this incident, you clearly would be better off if you could forgive your friend. Research has shown that our health improves when we free up mental space from grudges and hate.
In a study published in 2003 in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Kathleen A. Lawler and colleagues interviewed 108 college students about a time when a parent or friend had deeply hurt them and measured their blood pressure at several points during the conversation. Subjects who forgave their betrayers had lower levels of blood pressure than those who hadn’t been as lenient. Even more important, college students who had more forgiving personalities overall turned over to have lower blood-pressure levels and heart rates.
Of course, forgiveness isn’t easy, but if you can pull it off, it brings real benefits.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I go out to dinner with my husband once a week, and every time, we promise to order something healthy—but when we see the menu, we get tempted and order something less virtuous but tasty. Any advice on how to show more resolve?
—Aimee
You are describing a classical case of temptation. Before you get to the restaurant, you’ve settled on a certain idea of how you want to behave—then you get tempted, and afterward, you regret your indulgences. So how can you override temptation? Just order for each other. When we order for our significant other, we aren’t tempted by taste and can instead think about their health—which is also what our spouse would want a few hours later.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.