To all those who attended the PoorQuality forum last night, thanks for participating!
For more information about the exhibit, please see our Artistically Irrational website
Tweet 
Like 4 years ago today I wrote this post……
Feb 19 / 2008
Birth announcement
I am delighted to announce the birth of Predictably Irrational.
Predictably Irrational was born after a rather long but mostly painless labor, and so far seems healthy and in good spirit. Predictably Irrational is largely orange and blue, but they tell me that this is normal (or at least acceptable).
At birth it is about 300 pages, and 9 x 6 x 1.1 inches.
They tell me that the next few weeks will be a lot of work around the clock, and sleepless nights. But as the proud father, I am looking forward to this next step.
Dan
It has been very interesting four years, and I am very grateful for everything that happened and changed since that day.
Dan
Want to know how to ensure your wife or girlfriend’s satisfaction with her Valentine’s Day present? Over breakfast, casually mention that recent census data shows women outnumber men in your area, and that men are apparently a scarce commodity (or maybe just the first part).
Why would this matter? Well, according to a recent study from the University of Minnesota, perceived gender ratio affects economic behavior in both men and women. Regarding your sweetheart’s present, after female participants read an article describing a dearth of men in the local population, the amount of money they expected a man to spend on dinner, Valentine’s Day, and engagement rings decreased (and likewise, they expected men to woo them more lavishly when there were reportedly more men than women).
This sort of news had a complementary effect on men. When male participants read an article indicating an excess of men in the population and then answered questions about monthly spending habits, they reported they would borrow 84% money more and save 42% less. When the article reversed the ratio, men accordingly borrowed less and saved more. (Unlike men, women’s spending habits were not altered by the reported population inequality, only their expectations were.)
Moreover, an apparent discrepancy in gender was all it took to increase men’s willingness to make financially riskier decisions. In another experiment, participants were shown photos of groups of people: some where women outnumbered men, some where men outnumbered women, and some with an equal number of each. Afterwards, experimenters asked participants whether they would rather be paid the following day, or wait for a greater amount in a month. The result? After viewing photographs graced by fewer women, men were much more likely to choose $20 the next day over waiting a few weeks for $30.
As it turns out, researchers discovered that these results are born out in real populations too: In Columbus, Georgia, there are 1.18 single men for every single woman, and the average consumer debt is $3,479 higher than it is 100 miles away in Macon, where there are 0.78 single men for every woman.
So for those of you who are single and looking to find a match, here’s a little help from the US Census Bureau. Ladies, you’ll want to try your luck in the blue areas; guys, your best bet is in the red.
Oh, and Happy Valentine’s Day.
We just published a new paper:
A top cause of preventable death, obesity is a growing threat to an able-bodied, functioning society. Simply put, overeating is one of the biggest contributions to the obesity epidemic, and despite widespread efforts to promote health education, there may be better ways to combat this problem than by giving people nutritional information and relying on them to use that information to make wise choices. After all, we live in a country where chef Jamie Oliver’s shocking chicken nugget demonstration was absolutely no deterrent to the appeal of a fried blend of gooey chicken carcass.
If even this shocking intervention had no effect, we may need to do more than post calorie labels, a movement that (albeit well-intended) has seen limited success (see 1,2,3). Traditionally, such interventions are more successful at changing attitudes than actual behaviors, and when it comes to health — attitudes and behaviors don’t always go hand in hand.
Of course, we know that just thinking about exercise and eating healthy will not keep us healthy – we can’t lose weight by intending to use the treadmill. We need to put on our gym shorts and start jogging. With food, we can start by simply eating less.
Janet Schwartz and I, along with Jason Riis and Brian Elbel, tested out an alternative to calorie labeling – merely asking customers at a fast food restaurant (with and without a small incentive) if they would like to downsize their side dishes (by taking a half portion of an excessively large high-carbohydrate side dish). We carried out this intervention before and after calorie labels were put in place, and found that while calorie labels had no effect on the number of calories consumed, the offer to downsize did! As much as a third of the customers who were given the offer decided to take less food (compared to ~1% who asked to downsize on their own) and consequently ate less (yes, we even weighed their leftovers), showing that a simple offer to downsize can go a long way toward encouraging a healthier diet.
The conclusion: Offering people a chance to exercise self control can be effective, but we need to stop people, slow them down and offer them to take a better path at the moment when they are placing their order.
———
(1) Downs JS, Loewenstein G, & Wisdom J. (2009). The psychology of food consumption: strategies for promoting healthier food choices, American Economic Review, 99(2), 1-10.
(2) Elbel B, Kersh R, Brescoll V, & Dixon LB. (2009). Calorie labeling and food choices: A first look at the effects on low-income people in New York City, Health Affairs, 28(6), 1110-21.
(3) Bollinger B., Leslie P. & Sorensen AT. (forthcoming). Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants. AEJ: Economic Policy.
I’ve explored the power of free in the context of tattoos before, and anyone who saw last years’ comedy Bridesmaids no doubt laughed at this particularly memorable scene. But this story out of the Netherlands caught me a little off guard just the same. First, consider what you would do for a year’s worth of free movie tickets. Or if you like live music, tickets to your favorite venue. Would you pay $200? Would you eat a bag of (nonpoisonous) insects?
Well, the Unlimited Movies Cinema in the Netherlands has offered moviegoers the opportunity to see free movies for an entire year—all they have to do is get the theater’s logo (a dog-like creature flying under a banner of unfurled film reel) tattooed on their body (for pictures, check this page out). The offer is part of a promotion for the latest movie in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series.
I developed an appreciation for the surprising power of FREE! from the experiments my colleagues and I conducted on how people respond to things when their cost is zero (included in Predictably Irrational). For instance, when we set up a temporary candy stand and sold mouthwatering Lindt truffles (which usually cost around 50 cents) for 15 cents and ho-hum Hershey Kisses for 1 cent, 73% of the chocolate-lovers who stopped by made the rational decision and chose the superior and highly discounted Lindt truffles. But when we lowered the price by 1 cent for each item—resulting in a cost of 14 cents and 0 cents respectively—suddenly demand reversed and 69% of consumers chose the free Kisses.
The power zero exercises over people’s choice in chocolate nicely demonstrates the irrational draw of free things, but it’s still difficult to know what to make of people getting a cinema logo (and not the most aesthetically pleasing one at that) permanently inked on their body for a single year of free movies. While according to the story, only 18 people have elected to exchange skin space for free movies, one has to ask whether the wonders of free will ever cease…
And win an autographed first edition copy of Peter Ubel’s new book—by coming up with creative titles!
I saw the great suggestions you gave to Dan about his new book, and would love to get similar help with my latest book. I’m Peter Ubel, a colleague of Dan’s at Duke University, and my new book is about medical decision-making, specifically the challenge that doctors and patients face trying to talk together about healthcare alternatives in ways that will help them pick the choice that is best for the individual patient.
In the old days, and I’m not talking about that long ago, medical decisions weren’t shared affairs. Doctors made decisions and patients, largely, obeyed. Then in the 1970s, the traditions of medical decision making ran head-on into patients (and lawyers and a new breed of people called ethicists) who demanded that doctors involve patients more actively in their decisions. Now, doctors are taught that the best choice is often not merely a medical decision, but instead hinges on patient values. Under this new paradigm, the physician’s job is to inform patients about their alternatives so that each individual patient can decide which choice fits them best.
Sometimes this new paradigm works great. But too often, it fails miserably. It often starts when physicians like me try to inform patients about their health care conditions. For example, consider a conversation I quote in the book, in which a hematologist describes the risks and benefits of treating leukemia to his patient:
“So if you look at complete cytogenetic response rates in the chronic phase, it’s about 80%, and if you look at the accelerated phase, it’s about 15%. So, the drug doesn’t work in advanced disease very well. If you look at patients who get a complete cytogenetic response as their best response in the Iris trial, their risk of ever progressing in the next 4 years, so about 48 months roughly, is about 8% overall.”
“That’s good,” the patient replied.
“Yeah. So, and this is divided into people who become Philadelphia chromosome positive but appear to be in chronic phase. And half of these are people who go to accelerated phase or blast crisis. If you look at people who had complete cytogenetic response, this is people who had complete cytogenetic remission at any time of the trial, … if you look at people who are at complete cytogenetic remission at 6 months like you are, this is probably less than 5%, so”
“Say that part again,” the patient interjected, “because I didn’t quite follow you.”
You didn’t? Did you forget to go to medical school or something?
Problem 1, then, is that we doctors don’t always know how to explain things to our patients in terms they understand. Problem 2, as readers of this site know all too well, is that even when people DO understand the facts, they are still, . . . how should I put this, . . . predictably irrational. Like Dan, I’ve spent much of my career discovering the irrational forces that influence people’s decisions, and in this book I show these forces at work in the context of medical decision making.
Fortunately, there is a way out of this mess. After telling stories of “medical decisions gone wild,” I lay out ways doctors and patients can work together to make better decisions. I discuss some cool new research that shows what we need to do to achieve shared decision-making between doctors and patients. I show how to move beyond the simple, and wrong, idea that giving patients information will make them empowered, rational decision-makers.
That’s the gist. Any pithy titles come to mind? If any of you come up with an idea that leads me to my eventual title, I will mail you an autographed copy of my book when it comes out next fall.
Thanks.
Peter Ubel
If you’ve been to the doctor’s office recently with any kind of complaint, it’s likely you were asked to rate the pain you were experiencing on a scale from 0 to 10 (being the worst pain possible). Well, a group of researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently analyzed the self-reported pain measurements from 11,000 medical records from 2007-2010 and discovered something surprising: women report greater levels of pain than men for the same injuries and ailments.
In The Upside of Irrationality, I briefly discussed a disagreement I had with a professor about the difference in pain tolerance between men and women. My professor, Ina Weiner, maintained the view that women have a higher tolerance in order to cope with childbirth, and she was unimpressed by the story I told about a woman I’d met in the burn unit who confided in me that the pain of her burns was far worse than what she experienced in childbirth. As you might expect, I decided to run a small experiment, and asked the men and women who passed by my cubicle (where I worked as a research assistant) to submerge a hand in hot water and keep it there until the pain became unbearable. Meanwhile, I timed them and recorded their gender.
The next day in class I was excited to describe my experiment and to report that the men who participated kept their hand in the hot water for much longer than the women. Professor Weiner replied that all I’d proven was that men were stupider—after all, who would subject themselves to such pain just for my silly study? Naturally this took the wind out of my sails, and I left the subject alone after that.
But as it turns out, the women analyzed in this study reported more intense pain—an average of about 20% more—for equal-opportunity afflictions ranging from neck and back pain to viral Hepatitis. While the experience of pain and the way people report it is inevitably subjective (for instance, the presence of a concerned family member might lead someone to downplay their pain), it’s likely that the large number of people included in the analysis counterbalances social and individual differences.
And while I would never say “I told you so” to a former teacher, I do hope that this research might make its way somehow to Professor Weiner.
For the original paper, click here.
Call for Artists to respond to research on inequality
Hosted by Dan Ariely and the Center for Advanced Hindsight
Artists from around the world are invited to attend a discussion on social and economic inequality (from the lab that hosted the “Creative Dishonesty” project), on Wednesday, February 22nd at 7 PM EST. (Artists who do not live within driving distance of Durham, NC will watch the forum streaming live online.)
Interested artists are to RSVP to the curator, Catherine Howard, at creativedishonesty@gmail.com by Tuesday, February 21st at 9 PM.
After the forum, artists interested in creating artwork in response to the research will complete an online application, including a 1-page explanation of the artist’s creative process and 2-3 digital images of past work. To be considered, applications must be submitted by Monday, February 27th at 9 PM.
Artists will be notified if they are selected to participate by February 29th and will receive a $100 stipend to complete their piece. There is no limitation to the style or media of pieces created for “PoorQuality,” but all work must be completed by May 5th.
Artwork created for “PoorQuality” will be on display at the Center for Advanced Hindsight from June 1st to August 31st with a reception on June 22nd. An exhibit catalog, including responses and reflections by the artists and the researchers, will be published. Each artist will receive a copy.
Artists will retain all rights to their piece. Works will be returned to artists after the exhibit by September 15th, 2012. If the piece is purchased, the $100 stipend will be deducted from the purchase price.
Important Deadlines
Feb 22, 7 PM – “PoorQuality: Inequality” forum at the Center for Advanced Hindsight
Feb 27, 9 PM – Deadline to apply for participation
Feb 29, 9 AM – Selected artists will be notified
May 5, 9 PM – Drop-off deadline
Jun 22, 6 PM – 10 PM – Opening reception at the Center for Advanced Hindsight
For more information about the “PoorQuality” project, contact curator Catherine Howard at creativedishonesty@gmail.com
Call for Artists to respond to research on inequality
Hosted by Dan Ariely and the Center for Advanced Hindsight
Artists from around the world are invited to attend a discussion on social and economic inequality (from the lab that hosted the “Creative Dishonesty” project), on Wednesday, February 22nd at 7 PM EST. (Artists who do not live within driving distance of Durham, NC will watch the forum streaming live online.)
Interested artists are to RSVP to the curator, Catherine Howard, at creativedishonesty@gmail.com by Tuesday, February 21st at 9 PM EST
After the forum, artists interested in creating artwork in response to the research will complete an online application, including a 1-page explanation of the artist’s creative process and 2-3 digital images of past work. To be considered, applications must be submitted by Monday, February 27th at 9 PM.
Artists will be notified if they are selected to participate by February 29th and will receive a $100 stipend to complete their piece. There is no limitation to the style or media of pieces created for “PoorQuality” but all work must be completed by May 5th.
Artwork created for “PoorQuality” will be on display at the Center for Advanced Hindsight from June 1st to August 31st with a reception on June 22nd. An exhibit catalogue, including responses and reflections by the artists and the researchers, will be published. Each artist will receive a copy.
Artists will retain all rights to their piece. Works will be returned to artists after the exhibit by September 15th, 2012. If the piece is purchased, the $100 stipend will be deducted from the purchase price.
Important Deadlines
Feb 22, 7 PM – “PoorQuality: Inequality” forum at the Center for Advanced Hindsight
Feb 27, 9 PM – Deadline to apply for participation
Feb 29, 9 AM – Selected artists will be notified
May 5, 9 PM – Drop-off deadline
Jun 22, 6 PM – 10 PM – Opening reception at the Center for Advanced Hindsight
For more information about the “PoorQuality” project, contact curator Catherine Howard at creativedishonesty@gmail.com.
Learn more about this research at danariely.com
UPDATE: We have a new website fully devoted to our “Artistically Irrational” art series.
Check it out here: http://artisticallyirrational.ssri.duke.edu/