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) |
Ask Ariely: On Conversational Connection and Greater Gratitude
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 mostly kept to my established circle of family and friends during the pandemic, but this New Year’s, my neighbors are hosting a get-together, and I’m very excited to attend. I’ll be meeting quite a few new people, and I’m nervous as to whether I can master the art of small talk after so many months without practice. Do you have any suggestions?
—Michelle
Small talk is boring, and losing your facility with it may not be such a loss. What if you took advantage of this forced forgetting and tried to replace shallow pleasantries with something deeper? Most of us wish to have meaningful conversations in our daily lives but expect our exchanges with strangers to be awkward. They don’t have to be.
In an experiment, researchers paired up attendees at a small conference and gave each duo 10 minutes to discuss four questions. The questions were designed to bypass small talk and lead to greater connection—for example, “Can you describe a time you cried in front of another person?” After a few such questions and answers, the participants reported not feeling awkward at all—on the contrary, they came away feeling more connected to one another and happier than they had expected.
We underestimate how much potential conversation partners care about deep talk over superficialities, as well as how satisfying such exchanges can be. In fact, the deeper our conversations are on any given day, the happier we tend to be.
So when you go to the New Year’s Eve party, try not making small talk at all. Instead of inquiring about people’s days or their jobs, ask them what they are passionate about, or where they see themselves in a few years. Maybe even ask them about the last time they cried in front of another person.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I know I should probably write thank you notes for the holiday gifts I received, but I’m bad at composing them. I end up wasting lots of note cards with rewrites that still end up sounding insincere. I’m starting to wonder if this endeavor is really worthwhile.
—Amit
Keep going with your thank you notes! Expressing gratitude is incredibly worthwhile and easier than you think.
What you’re experiencing is a basic perspective-taking problem. Many people share your worry about finding the right words to express gratitude and about sounding sincere. People on the receiving end, however, value a thank you of any type and tend to pay more attention to the warmth of the note than the quality of the writing.
To study such “gratitude mis-calibrations,” researchers asked people to write thank you notes and then predict how they thought their expressions of gratitude would be received. Then they asked the actual recipients to report how the notes affected them. Senders predicted that recipients would experience an average happiness rating of three (on a scale of one to five), whereas the actual recipients rated their happiness at 4½.
Perhaps because we underestimate how happy our expressions of thanks make others, we let unnecessary concerns get in the way of conveying our gratitude. The best way to motivate ourselves to write thank you notes may be to experience receiving them—in which case, allow me to express my thanks to you for sending me this question.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal here.
Ask Ariely: On Delicious Decisions and Powerful Promotions
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,
This Christmas, the entire family will be together for the first time in two years. I’m in charge of Christmas dinner, and I feel under pressure for everything to be perfect. I’m overwhelmed and exhausted by all the decisions: wine or eggnog, turkey or roast beef, mashed potatoes or roasted potatoes? Even thinking about decorations and napkins makes my head spin. What should I do?
—Bertha
Sounds like you are suffering from choice overload. More options would intuitively seem better than none, but too many can produce anxiety and decrease happiness. In the most extreme cases, facing an excess of choices can lead to not making a choice at all.
The downside of choice was first demonstrated in a field study conducted more than twenty years ago. Upon entering a grocery store, customers encountered a stand offering jams to sample and purchase. On some days there were six jam flavors on offer; on others, 24. More people were attracted to the stand when 24 flavors were on display, but only a tenth as many ended up buying jam as when there were just six. When faced with too many choices, people worry about regretting a decision that isn’t perfect—and not making any decision is the simplest way to avoid making the wrong one.
As for Christmas dinner, one way to lift your decision-making burden is to crowdsource it—for example, by asking your friends on social media to make some of the decisions for you.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
This past year I’ve worked alongside a wonderful group of colleagues. I am so thankful to have worked on this team. I’ve just been promoted and will now be managing this same group. I worry that doing so will change my relationship with its members. Do you have any advice?
—Erika
In your new role, make sure to continue to express gratitude toward your colleagues. Their support will be even more crucial to your success, and words of appreciation can go a long way in motivating people.
Sadly, research has shown that when people get more power, they tend to express less gratitude, even though more power might come with more to be grateful for, such as a higher salary. One study looked at the acknowledgement sections of academic papers and found that authors with high-ranking titles expressed less thanks than their junior counterparts did. A study of Wikipedia editors found the same effect: senior editors made fewer thankful comments than junior ones.
These results suggest a link between power and expressing less thanks, but they don’t rule out the possibility that more powerful authors and editors expressed less thanks because they received less help. A controlled lab experiment was very helpful in identifying the causal mechanism: participants were offered help on an annoying task from someone they were told was either their boss or their employee for the task at hand. As in the previous studies, people were less thankful for help from a subordinate than from their manager, perhaps because they felt entitled to help from a lower status worker.
People with more power are less prone to give thanks. Try to fight this tendency as you take on your new role with your old team.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.
Ask Ariely: On Compliment Cultivation, Stress Spillover, and Environmental Empathy
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,
Working remotely, not only do my employees miss out on social connections, but a lot of good work goes underappreciated as we jump from one Zoom call to the next without much time for spontaneous conversation. How can I change that?
—Nathaniel
Receiving praise has continuously been linked to improved motivation and wellbeing on one hand and reduced burnout and absenteeism on the other. These benefits extend to the person giving the compliment: Recent research found that giving accolades can actually make people happier than receiving them. On top of that, crafting a compliment requires one to think about the recipient, and this fosters social connection that leads to increased happiness.
To spontaneously meet someone and compliment them is hard during remote work. Thus, it is important to create space that allows for compliments and other small acts of kindness. Consider setting a few minutes aside during a weekly team meeting, or setting up a separate communication channel that allows employees to recognize each other and thank them.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
Talking recently with my friends, we all agreed that the pandemic was a stressful time, but some people’s relationships with their spouses seemed to fare better than others. What might explain the disparity among couples?
—Ellen
There are most likely many reasons for this, but here is one: Stress can take a toll on a relationship. For example, after a tough day at work and a long commute, you may arrive home feeling impatient and irritable toward your partner (who then ends up feeling undeservedly blamed). Taking your stress out on someone unrelated to its source is referred to as “stress spillover.”
The pandemic has created an extraordinary amount of stress and a lot of opportunities for spillover. Those of us who are better able to compartmentalize our COVID-19 anxiety, rather than taking it out on our partners, are likely to be better at protecting our relationships during these complex times.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
My aunt and uncle invited me to dinner this week. I’m very much looking forward to seeing them again, but I’m dreading the inevitable conversation about climate change (we all live in the Pacific Northwest) as my uncle is a firm believer in conspiracy theories. How can I get through to someone I deeply care about without getting into an argument?
—Emily
The odds of changing your uncle’s opinions in one meeting are 0. Don’t even aim for that. You might be able to make a dent in his beliefs over time, but you will need to understand his motivations and approach the conversation calmly and with empathy.
Often people are drawn to conspiracy theories because they feel angry, powerless or disappointed about their lives and the state of the world. For example, perhaps your uncle feels anxious about the recent heat wave and his lack of control over the environment. Research shows that such feelings are common among conspiracy theorists. Concluding that climate change doesn’t exist satisfies an existential psychological need: to feel safe and in control of external events.
Listen to what your uncle has to say. When you better understand the forces underlying his beliefs, you can try to help him deal with these more directly and in this way reduce his need for conspiracy theories.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.
Ask Ariely: On Besting Biases, Anticipating Activities, and Exceeding Expectations
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 company strives for more gender equality, particularly in leadership positions. To help us achieve this goal we make sure when we examine the top candidates for the position that we anonymize the resumes and have them reviewed by both male and female members of our staff. Still, our recent round of hiring has not resulted in the desired diversity. What else can we do to improve our hiring process?
—Pat
Just as tossing a coin won’t necessarily give you equal numbers of heads and tails in the short run, the same goes for fair hiring practices. Here, too, you should not expect proportional hiring as an immediate result; you can only look at trends once you have hired a substantial number of people.
Still, one element in your process suggests a path for improvement. You discussed how you assess top candidates, but what about biases that may come into play before this short list is made? Most gender biases in hiring are a result of companies’ informal recruitment rather than the formal procedure. Is it possible that your short list contains mainly men due to colleagues’ recommendations or other networks?
To address this possibility, double the size of your short list. That alone could help a broader pool of applicants get serious consideration.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I was planning a surprise beach weekend for my boyfriend, but a friend accidentally said something and ruined the surprise. I’m disappointed, and my friend feels terrible. What can we do to prevent this mistake from casting a dark shadow on the trip?
—Leslie
Consider your friend’s error a gift in disguise. Now that your boyfriend knows, he’ll be able to look forward to the trip. The anticipation is a bonus source of happiness! Studies have shown that when people think back on life experiences, the anticipation can be more positive than the experience itself.
Even more, you can heighten the anticipation by doing things like counting down the days to the trip or looking at the menu from a fancy seafood place where you just got a reservation. Surprises are great, but short-lived.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
For years, I’ve been organizing a charity event for an animal rescue organization. Every year people tell me I’ve outdone myself, and it’s starting to feel like an expectation that the next event will offer more than the last. Now I’m struggling to come up with new ideas, and I’m worried about disappointing the committee. What can I do?
—Alice
There is an interesting study where participants were asked to modify a structure built with Legos. Most participants added more bricks, but a quicker and better strategy was to remove a few. With this in mind, consider whether you could improve the event by subtracting instead of adding. Try keeping it simple and stick to the most successful elements from previous years.
We have a tendency to think that the way to make things better is to do more. Often we overlook the value of removing something to increase the appreciation of the rest.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.
Ask Ariely: On Making Memories, Besting Burnout, and Crafting Compliments
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,
Whenever my mother visits us, she’s preoccupied with taking photos of her grandchildren so that she can remember every moment. Having her camera in our faces all the time is annoying, but I don’t want to deprive her of good memories when the visit ends. Should I try to convince her to stop taking pictures?
—Barbara
Now that most of us carry a phone with a camera all the time, it’s hard to resist the temptation to document every significant moment in photographs. But it turns out that taking pictures all the time isn’t just annoying; it can make it more difficult to remember the very experiences the photos are intended to capture.
In one experiment, pairs of visitors took a tour of a historic landmark. One person in each pair was instructed to take photos and the other was told not to. A few weeks later they were given a surprise memory test about the landmark, and it turned out that the visitors who took photos remembered much less than those who didn’t. While the photographers were preoccupied with trying to get the best shot, the nonphotographers were able to think about the experience and absorb it into the structure of their memories.
With this in mind, try asking your mother to experiment with leaving her camera at home next time she visits. She might find that this allows her to spend more time really interacting with the grandchildren, leaving her with memories that are more vivid and meaningful than any photos.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
After a long holiday vacation, I thought I would return to work re-energized. But after just a few days back I’m already feeling burned out again. What can I do?
—Nathaniel
You might think that the more time you spend away from the office, the more refreshed you’ll feel when you return. But research shows that the length of a vacation plays only a small part in how you feel when you go back to work. What matters most are the conditions you’re coming back to. If you feel unappreciated or powerless, or that your work environment is unfair, frustration and unhappiness can come back very quickly. If you want to fight burnout, don’t take more time away from work. Think instead about ways to address these underlying issues.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
My fiancé is an excellent cook, and every meal he makes for us is delicious. I’m always giving him compliments, but I worry that over time they will be less meaningful because he’ll get used to them. How can I continue to praise his cooking in a way that shows I mean it?
—Sydney
I wouldn’t worry too much about your fiancé getting used to your compliments. Research shows that receiving compliments is very motivating and that people who give them usually underestimate their impact on the recipient. One study that looked specifically at frequent compliments found they didn’t lose their effectiveness as long as they weren’t identical each time. So keep the compliments coming, but make sure to switch them up from time to time.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal here.
Ask Ariely: On Simple Savings, Better Bonuses, and Revised Resolutions
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.
Ask Ariely: On Team Tragedy, Airport Anxiety, and Grumpy Gift-wrapping
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.
___________________________________________________
Hi Dan,
I have a hard time watching my favorite football team on TV because I get so upset when they are behind, and when they lose I’m really miserable. Is there a way for me to enjoy the game without taking the result so seriously?
—Brian
One option is to remove the element of surprise by recording the game and having someone tell you the final score before you watch. That way, you will feel less emotionally invested in the outcome and you’ll be able to enjoy the game more for its own sake.
Another approach is to pick a treat that you enjoy—let’s say chocolate—and have some only if your team loses. This would make the loss bittersweet, since you would offset the unhappiness of losing with the pleasure of the chocolate.
Still, as with all kinds of love, loving a team will inevitably bring occasional heartbreak. The best way to deal with it is by learning to appreciate that emotional complexity, with all the good and bad feelings involved.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
My partner thinks it’s better to arrive at the airport hours early to avoid feeling anxious about missing our flight. But I would rather put that time to good use and minimize the hours spent waiting aimlessly at the gate. What’s a good rule of thumb for travel planning?
—Emma
The key here is your partner’s anxiety. If you were simply trying to calculate the most efficient way to use your own time, you would look at how much time you would waste waiting at the airport (discounted by the useful things you can do there, like catching up on email or reading a book) and compare it with how much time you would lose if you missed your flight. Then you could come up with an optimal solution for yourself.
But once you start considering your partner’s feelings of anxiety, you are in the irrational domain of emotions, which are harder to calculate. Try to figure out how severe your significant other’s anxiety is and how long it lasts. If he is highly anxious for, say, 48 hours before the flight, it would be worthwhile to agree to arrive at the airport a few hours early to eliminate his unhappiness. In general, we need to focus not just on how to use our own time efficiently but on what we can do to make our loved ones happy, rational or not.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I spent half a day wrapping Christmas gifts for my family this year. Is it really worth my time?
—Jessica
Even though it’s time-consuming, wrapping gifts is worthwhile since it makes the recipients enjoy them more, according to a 1992 study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. The effect holds even when the wrap is transparent and the recipient can see what’s inside. That’s because wrapping slows down the process of opening the gift, which helps us pay closer attention to the experience. Unwrapping gifts is like the ritual of drinking wine: Swirling it in the glass, looking at it and smelling it all slow things down so that we can focus on the pleasure ahead.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal here.
Ask Ariely: On Craving Companions, Finding Fairness, and Delaying Decisions
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.
___________________________________________________
Hi, Dan.
I started college a couple of weeks ago, and I find myself very preoccupied about whether the people I’m meeting like me. Do you have any advice about how I can relax around people?
—Bronwyn
You will be relieved to know that most of us tend to underestimate how much people enjoy our company. In 2018, Erica J. Boothby and colleagues published a paper about the “liking gap”—the difference between how much we think other people like us and how much they actually like us. In one of their studies, they asked first-year college students to rate how much they liked a given roommate and how much they believed their roommates liked them, starting in September and continuing throughout the school year.
They found that participants systematically underestimated how much they were liked. In fact, it wasn’t until May, after living together for eight months, that people accurately perceived how much they were liked. So try to focus your social energy on spending quality time with friends and don’t worry too much about the outcome.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I work for a nonprofit organization that offers mindfulness retreats for teens. Our tuition model is that we request 1% of a family’s income, up to $2,000, for a week-long retreat. We feel that this model is fair, but some higher-income families object to paying more than others for the same service. Why do they feel this way, when the cost is such a small share of their income?
—Tom
Our perception of what is fair depends to a large degree on what we’re being asked to give up to achieve a fair outcome. In your arrangement, people with more money are being asked to pay more, so they are likely to see a fixed price for tuition as being more fair than a sliding scale—and vice versa for families with less money.
One way to try to overcome this bias is what the political philosopher John Rawls called the “veil of ignorance.” In this approach, people are asked to design an imaginary society they will have to live in, without knowing whether they are going to be rich or poor. This means that they have to decide what is fair before they know how much they will personally stand to gain or lose from any given arrangement—for instance, the tax rate. Maybe you can try an exercise of this sort related to tuition as part of your mindfulness teaching.
___________________________________________________
Hi, Dan.
I have an aging but perfectly fine car and waste a lot of time pining for something more modern and comfortable. But I haven’t found a new model I love, and with technological improvements happening so fast, cars are getting better every year. Should I wait for the perfect car to come along or should I compromise and buy something now?
—Alex
My sense is that if you don’t like any of the available options, it means you’re not yet ready to make a change. Happiness isn’t just about what we have and don’t have; it’s also about not constantly looking for something better. Why don’t you decide that you won’t look at new cars for a certain period—say, two years—and then give yourself a three-month window to research a purchase. At the end of that time, you will pick the best option available. This way, you won’t waste time and energy on an open-ended search.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.
Ask Ariely: On Balancing Birthdays, Valuing Vacations, and Finding Fulfillment
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 am a widow, and my friendships are very important to me. But many of my friends are couples, and each year I end up buying birthday gifts for both the husband and the wife, plus an anniversary gift. While I always get a nice present in exchange on my birthday, the balance of gift-giving seems unfair. Is there a more evenhanded way to exchange gifts?
—Carol
It’s very hard to shift social norms about gift-giving, especially when a pattern is well established. The best approach might be to try to replace the current norm with a new one. For example, what if you told your friends that you are concerned about the environment and want to try to reduce your level of consumption and waste, so you are planning to start giving cards instead of gifts. Ask them to help you with this commitment by giving you cards in exchange. This way, you would be appealing to a moral principle, rather than telling the that all you are trying to do is to save SOME money.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I’m planning a vacation, and I’m considering a prepaid, all-inclusive resort, so that I won’t have to worry about the cost of every drink and sandwich. But I’m concerned that the all-inclusive package won’t be as good an experience as some of the other, pay-as-you-go options that I’m looking at. Is prepaying always the best choice?
—Saurabh
You’re certainly right that an all-inclusive resort isn’t always the highest-quality option. But you have to remember that what’s most important is whether you’re going to enjoy the experience you have. Constantly having to make decisions about what to buy can detract from your vacation experience, even if the hotels or restaurants you end up patronizing are of better quality.
In general, when you make a decision, it’s better not to ask “Am I choosing the absolute best option?” Instead, you should consider your enjoyment of the experience as a whole, including your ability to relax and your peace of mind.
___________________________________________________
Dear Dan,
I grew up in a working-class household, and I’ve been upwardly mobile in my career, but I’ve recently begun to feel that my job is meaningless. Should I think about my work merely as a way to make money to survive? Or would it be better for me to look for a job that I can take pride in as part of my identity?
—Ella
The research is very clear that finding meaning in your job is necessary for happiness. At the same time, if too much of your identity is tied up in your job, it can make you more vulnerable to work-related stress. A study conducted in 1995 by Michael R. Frone, Marcia Russell and M. Lynne Cooper found that people who strongly connected their identities with their jobs were much more sensitive to work stressors than those who thought about their work in a more casual and detached way.
Ideally, you should look for work that gives you a sense of pride and meaning, but you should also remember that a job doesn’t define you, and that there are other, equally important parts of your identity.
See the original article in the Wall Street Journal.