OutofH2G2references

I decided to dive into this a bit. It's been a while since I read the book, so instead I decided to go straight to the source.

The original study can be found here: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/3/445/

In it, two studies are conducted. The first contains a pilot study which attempts to address the issue you pointed out.

Instead of asking people if they feel they are creative, the authors conducted the study in different departments of an advertising agency. (presumably a slightly elevated need for creative employees) They then had managers and employees rate the level of creativity required for each department. Finally, they asked each department to fill out questionnaires about dishonest behavior and compared the different departments. Results support the hypothesis.

In the second part of the first study, participants (college students) did an online test that "included dis-positional measures of both intelligence and creativity". Tests are outlined in the paper.

The participants then took another creativity test and in some conditions, were given the opportunity to cheat. (described both in the paper and book). Results support the conclusion.

If you are interested in the second study, read the paper. I think my outline covers enough to make the point.

In summary, it sounds like Dan's lay person summary in the book may be poorly worded. However, it does not appear that this sort of sloppy thinking made it's way into the original paper.

TL;DR - Read the paper. Wording in book may be sloppy. Results in paper are not.

Edit: Since some people seem to be seeing this now, in response to earlier criticism, I should also point out what people who have met Dan or read his books ought to know. Dan has sever burns on both his hands, which make typing difficult. I have corresponded with him 2-3 time and every time he sent me a voice recording in an email because it is painful for him to type. Of course his short responses could be famous people not caring, but I suspect that this is not the case. I only met Dan once at a lecture in New York. He gets 1000s of emails a day and he still took the time to give me advice about grad-school and answered a few of my questions when he could have easily just ignored them! Personally I think that makes his AMA more impressive, not less.

Double Edit Dan responded. OP delivers!

As an economist, I feel lumping mainstreams economics in to that bunch is a little presumptuous, but 100% behind the rest of them.

I'd just like to say that I love the work, am very impressed, and feel very strongly that you should know what you have actually made is a dinosaur called Deinonychus. Velociraptors had feathers and were turkey sized!

Still, as I said, very impressive!

Does anyone know the name of this study? A quick google search didn't turn up anything.

Hi Dan,

First: A thank you for doing this and for your work! It was Predictably Irrational which provided the original motivation to leave my job, go back to school, and become a behavioral economist!

Second: In the last 60 years, models of decision-making have been radically rethought. From perfect rationality in the 50s and 60, to rationality with some quirks in the 70s and 80s, and finally to trading stable preference for constructed ones in the 90s and beyond.

As someone pretty well steeped in the literature, but maybe with out the necessary intuition of someone who has studied decision making for a life time, it seems like the study of preferences, decision-making, and choices is in disarray. We have a bunch of tiny pieces to the puzzle and some theories that should be the edge bits, but apparently are not.

My question is, do you think behavioral economics/psychology will ever provide a workable frame work or overarching theory like classical economics? Should it? Or are we stuck with "People are rational sometimes, but here is a handful of examples of when they aren't"

Thanks again!