Yesterday we announced the launch of an exciting new initiative, the Ulysses Lab. Endorsed and advised by many of the top behavioral science experts around the world, it promised to get you to your goals with perfect certainty. It seemed almost too good to be true – and it was. In case the outrageous punishments suggested by our tool didn’t give us away, the April 1st launch surely did.

To be painfully clear: We do not recommend you follow the “programs” assigned by the Ulysses Lab. It’s a good example of how NOT to apply behavioral science, and here’s why.

How not to design a commitment device

• You should know what you’re committing to

The Ulysses Lab took some bona fide insights about how pre-commitment can help us reach our goals, but applied it in the realm of the absurd. Publicly committing to behaving a certain way before we are in the throes of temptation can be a very effective way of sticking to our goals. However, in the Ulysses Lab tool, we asked people to commit to the program before they knew what it was. Of course, this would never fly in the real world. Blind pre-commitment not only seems crazy; it is unethical. No one should blindly agree to a commitment contract where it turns out they have to give away their first born child if they miss a gym date (or one of the other outrageous punishments we created, which you can see in Exhibit A.)

Thankfully, there are already much more behaviorally sound tools available that leverage commitment and implementation intentions.

• Punishments have to be deserved

When the reason you fail at something is out of your control, punishment is not the correct approach. For example, if you commit to exercising more often, but break your legs and are told by your doctor you can’t exercise, you shouldn’t be punished for not exercising. Punishment that you consented to is only deserved if it is your fault for failing to do the thing that you committed to doing. In the Ulysses Lab, there was no distinction between deserved and undeserved punishments.

• An intervention should never cause genuine harm

Interventions to change people’s behavior always thread a fine line between the benefit it will provide versus any potential harm. Worrying about the consequences of failing to stick to our promises can help us achieve what we want, but it should never cause genuine harm. So for example, we do not recommend following the Ulysses tool’s advice and placing yourself on a segway running off a cliff, swapping your fingers and toes with each other, or getting tarred and feathered medieval style.

To avoid terrible applications of behavioral science, we need experts.

These days, more and more organizations are seeing the power of carefully applying behavioral science to solve their users’ problems. There is an increased demand for behavioral scientists to work both within companies and as consultants. Yet many companies give their employees a popular science book about behavioral science, then expect them to be experts. That usually doesn’t work very well: It’s like having someone watch Grey’s Anatomy and then putting them in the operating room to perform surgery.

Behavioral scientists have a specific set of skills that make them uniquely qualified to apply their trade; they understand the scientific literature, the benefits and constraints of applying it in specific situations, and how to test whether it’s providing the intended benefits. When it’s not done correctly, it can backfire. In a recent example, United Airlines tried to replace employee bonuses with a lottery incentive. They quickly had to backtrack when employees became (understandably) enraged, especially after hearing how much money the company would save. There is a time and place for lottery incentives, but this certainly wasn’t it. A seasoned behavioral scientist would have recognized the factors at play, and realized that launching a program like this across a big company such as United without testing it first would be a massive risk, unlikely to end well.

Thank you

Finally, we would like to thank our partners in crime for making this April’s fool joke a success, organizations and individuals who work tirelessly to apply behavioral science around the world: Behavioral Science & Policy Association, Ogilvy Change, Busara, Hunting Dynasty, People Science, the Dishonesty Project, Action Design Network, Irrational Labs, BE Works, Joep Lange Institute, Science of People, FehrAdvice, Lemonade, Shapa, Dan Pink, Katy Milkman, Angela Duckworth, Charles Duhigg, Adam Grant, Francesca Gino, Andreas Staub, Michael Norton, David Pizarro, Robert Cialdini, Tim Harford, Paul Bloom, Leslie John, Peter McGraw, Vanessa Van Edwards, Yoel Inbar, Dean Karlan, Jonah Berger, Laurie Santos and Todd Rogers. These are all amazing, talented and fun people, and we hope our next collaboration lasts longer than one day!

Exhibit A:

All your money is invested in the alternative cryptocurrency “catcoin”:
You must now incorporate ketchup into every meal: 

Your ex(es) will get updated on your failure via text message, with the option of replying with mocking laughter:

The post Ulysses Lab: Too Good to Be True? appeared first on Center for Advanced Hindsight.

Who said behavioral scientists aren’t charming and romantic? Here are some behavioral principles we’ve translated into V-day tips to spice up your love life – use them at your own risk.

1. Misattribution of arousal: Looking to liven up a mundane relationship? Rekindle your partner’s arousal by taking them on a romantic stroll across your local suspension bridge. They’ll be sure to mistake their rapid heartbeat and shortness of breath for intense physical attraction.

2. Mere exposure effect: If you’re dating someone new this Valentine’s Day, it’s important to give them a subtle hint that you’d like to take things to the next level. Try placing photos of yourself around their home to make sure they’re thinking about you even more than any of their other potential suitors.

3. IKEA effect: Nothing makes us appreciate an item more than when we built it with our own blood, sweat, and tears. With that in mind, have your partner make their own dinner tonight. This way they’ll be sure to fully appreciate the effort and highly value the completed meal.

4. Anchoring: Set your partner’s expectations extremely low, so when you do something sort-of nice for them, it feels fantastic! Tell them you’re going to Taco Bell for dinner, and then treat them Chili’s instead – or tell them you’re boycotting Valentine’s Day altogether, so then any departure at all feels like a wonderful gift.

5. Reciprocity: Give your significant other something really nice early on in the day, so then if they haven’t gotten you a very good gift, they’ll feel indebted to you (and will still have time to upgrade your gift before the day is out.)

6. Relativity: Be sure to find out what your partner’s friends are doing for Valentine’s Day, and then make your plan slightly more elaborate, or gift slightly bigger. Even better, keep referencing the lousy gifts and plans of friends to make yours look great in comparison.

NOTE: CAH will not be held responsibility for your partner’s reactions to these tips. Proceed at your own risk.

(If it goes smashingly well, though, please let us know.)

The post 6 Ways to Charm Your Partner with Behavioral Science This Valentine’s Day appeared first on Center for Advanced Hindsight.

“Big data is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it… [ Huuuge data, however, that’s the next huge thing.] “ – Dan Ariely

What’s the difference between big data and huuuge data? The losers and haters will claim that there is no difference. The difference should be obvious. Before huge data we were lucky to find an n bigger than font-size 12. After adopting huuuge data practices we walked into the lab one day to find that this n many thousands of times larger had taken up residence in our common area.

Early adopters of huuuge data will also notice remarkable improvements in their available mental bandwidth. For example, big data started with 3 Vs as their guiding principles, volume,velocity, and variety. It has since been expanded to include two more, veracity and value. With huuuge data, you only have to remember one V, which stands for “very.” Very huuuge. Congratulations, you just freed up an extra 80% of your bandwidth for more important things.

As you can see from this Google trend data, between February 12th and February 25th big data suffered a staggering defeat at the hands of huuuge data. Interest in big data shrunk by 1.01%, while huuuge data saw an 100% increase over the same period of time. Needless to say, big data is losing bigly.

Don’t be the last person to jump on the bandwagon. If you want to be a step ahead of the competition, huuuge data is for you. The future is now.

The post The New Big Data appeared first on Center for Advanced Hindsight.