良い点　-値段に対して、読み応えがある。

　　　　　 -内容としては「人はなぜズルをするのか？」「人は自分のズルをどこまで許すのか？」「どういった内因性・外因性要因がズルを助長するのか？」といった興味深い質問から始まり、その答えを具体的な実験を通して探し求めていく話です。

　　　　　　-学問としてやっている人が一般の人向けに平易な文章でつづる形をとっているので、非常に読みやす。

　　　　　　-関連動画もある（[...]）。これを深堀した本です。

　　　　　 -最後に、英語の勉強にも良い本だと思います。（ある程度英語が分かる人。上の動画が分かる人なら分かります。）

抽象的に語られてきた分野に定量的、具体的な手法が導入され、少ない紙面を効果化的に使用する良著。

入門書のみならず、単に野次馬的興味をも満たしてくれる。

他のレヴュワーの方が、cheatingを「ズル」と訳しているので、同じ言葉を使わせていただく。Dan Ariely氏は、イスラエル出身の行動経済学者で、先輩であるAmos Tversky、Daniel Kahneman氏と同様ユダヤ人である。行動経済学は本当に有効で、人間には欲望や恐怖心があることによって、どのように行動するか、けれども必ずしも合理的ではなく行動することを端的に示してくれている。

ここでもAriely氏はいつものように具体的な調査に基づいて、ヴォランティアの人たちが幾らでも金品をくすねることができるのに、一定程度までしか懐に入れないことを挙げ、人間は自分が正直だと思いたいために、徹底的な「ワル」にならないと喝破する。

ところで「ズル」も大切なのだが、このくだりも見逃せない重要部分である。「----------- the idea that worries me the most is that is that the more cashless our society becomes, the more our moral compass slips.----------」これによって、「ズル」ができる機会も増えるのだが、一方でクレディット・カードやデビット・カードは便利だけれども、ますますその機会を増幅させるのではないかと言う指摘は看過できないのではないだろうか。そしてAriely氏は他の著書で述べていたと思うのだが、現金を使うと言う痛みがないことから、カード等を使う時に人は大胆になって、現金で支払う時よりも、大きな金額をカードで支払ってしまう、と指摘したことがあった。キャッスレス社会の持つ、別の弊害である。

また偽物のブランド品を身につけている場合、人は益々「ズル」を行なう傾向が強まると言うのも、見逃せない。『“What-the-hell” Effect』とAriely氏は述べているが、人間は一度、「ズル」をやってしまうと、モラルの歯止めが無くなってしまうものらしいことは自身の体験でもよく分かる。例えば禁煙の決意を一度破ってしまうと、どういう状況になるか、と想像すると分かりやすいだろう。

邦訳は2012年12月7日リリース。電子書籍版は2013年1月25日リリース。デューク大学のダン・アリエリー教授の3冊目の著作である。ダン・アリエリー教授は行動経済学の権威で、『高価な偽薬（プラセボ）は安価な偽薬よりも効力が高い』ことを示したことから、2008年にイグノーベル賞医学賞を受賞しているのはご存じの方も多いだろう。何しろ、相変わらず『予想どおり』に突き進んでいる。

今回のテーマは『ずる』である。『ずる』といって最初に例示されたのが、あの元エンロン最高経営責任者ジェフリー・スキリングだったのには思わず笑ってしまった。2000年度年間売上高1,110億ドル（全米第7位）、2001年の社員数21,000名という、全米でも有数の大企業であったエンロン。巨額の不正経理・不正取引による粉飾決算が明るみに出て、2001年12月に破綻に追い込まれた。破綻時の負債総額は諸説あるが少なくとも310億ドル、簿外債務を含めると400億ドルを超えていたのではないかとも言われている。そんな史上最悪の詐欺企業のトップが『マッキンゼー』だったことを『マッキンゼー』出身者は全く触れようとしない。これこそ『ずる』だよな、とぼくは思う。

そしてダン・アリエリーとその一味は徹底的に『ずる』について検証する。正直この研究がなにかの役に立つかは分からないが、検証し続ける。人間の行動や意思決定に認知バイアスがいかにかかるのかを、そしてどのようなゆらぎがあるかを示す。この徹底ぶりに毎回感心してしまう。

人間というのはダン・アリエリーにとって面白くて仕方がない『研究材料』なのが良く分かる。時には『ユージュアル・サスペクツ』のカイザー・ソゼになりきって、時には、ポール・サイモンの『サウンド・オブ・サイレンス』の替え歌を口ずさみながら、読者が驚くような実験・検証をしてみせる。そこに毎回惹きつけられ、最後まで読了してしまうのだ。

日々のシゴトには全く役たたないかもしれない。でも、こういう研究を続けるダン・アリエリーをとってもシアワセな人だと思うし、たまにはその研究成果につきあうのもいいかな、と思うのだ。

Una forma interesante y con bases científicas para analizar la honestidad y el por qué mentimos, no me esperaba mucho de los resultados

En general muy enriquecedor

I've seen the documentary and I decided to buy the book afterwards. It's very interesting and also it makes you think how we c**** on small amount on a daily basis. I do recommend it with no doubt!

I love the book

As other reviewers have posted, the "Honest Truth About Dishonesty" is an interesting book in and of itself to gain a better understanding of how behavioral economists approach business-related topics. I decided to read it more specifically in the context of two issues now in the news. First, there's the political debate about the goals and methods of people in power (a.k.a. the 1%, new upper class, or elites). In his book "Coming Apart" Charles Murray describes these elites in glowing terms as the people with brains and creativity who are identified by tests like the SAT, thrown together in elite universities and then again in corporate and government jobs to propel our economy and society forward. But in his book "Twilight of the Elites" Chris Hayes describes how some of these same elites have in fact propelled us through a failed decade where they have perpetrated frauds, engaged in unethical and dangerous behaviors for profit, and allowed cheating to become a norm in their institutions.

Second is the issue of how we are all affected in this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go environment. In his book "A Piece of the Action" Joe Nocera described in 1994 how the money revolution had "created a layer of complication to our already complicated lives, adding responsibilities that didn't exist before, making it necessary for us to learn about things that never used to be among our concerns. We can make mistakes with our money now, and those mistakes can be costly." In the almost 20 years since Nocera wrote that, things have only gotten more complicated -- what with vanishing pensions, gyrating stock markets, more onerous health care options, and housing crises. Hayes wonders now "whether the greatest threat we face is distrust ... in a society bankrupted by norms and order or ... the actual malfeasance and corruption of the pillar institutions themselves."

So with my interest in those two particular issues -- both clearly affected by dishonesty -- Dan Ariely's book promised to add some unique insights. While there is no shortage of opinions on these topics, Ariely comes at them from a fresh and non-political perspective. His chapter intros and set-ups to his various studies allude to these bigger issues, but he structures his experiments to learn psychologically whether and why people cheat in specific and controlled situations. Another reviewer commented that college students might not be the best subjects to use, but by Murray's reckoning this is the formative age where many of our future decision-makers start to establish their work habits, their team interactions, their moralities, and their sense of how far they can go before they get caught. I especially like how Ariely structures his chapters -- and presumably the series of experiments he selects -- around extensions of earlier experiments he's already conducted. So if people do cheat, do they cheat more as they get tired? Do they admit to themselves that they cheat under certain situations? Do they cheat more when they see others cheating around them? Do they cheat more when they're working creatively? By covering each of these and more aspects in separate chapters, you can see how these propensities to cheat might build upon each other, especially in work situations when the pressure is on to perform in opportunistic environments.

So what did I take from Ariely's work on the two topics I was interested in? While the book does not have specific chapters that address either of these two issues in those exact framings, Ariely does describe situations and scenarios that both leaders and each of us find ourselves in which actual dishonesty or the temptation to benefit dishonestly comes into play. On the elite dishonesty topic, one can see how a group of people under pressure to find new ways of making money, to get around specific regulations, or to take advantage of new technologies might be predisposed to cheat. Knowing that other people are billing more liberally and being less than honest almost forces honest people to skirt the rules. Ariely points out that creative people who are driven to make their organizations win are often the most effective liars and cheaters. He explains -- much as Nocera did in describing new financial products 17 years ago -- how new technologies are often used initially to gain unfair advantages over consumers until regulators and consumers figure them out and protect themselves better. All of this indicates how cheating can become rampant without constant vigilance. I would assume Ariely supports a more regulatory environment, given what he knows about what people do when left to their own devices.

Ariely also offers some observations about how and why it is difficult for all of us to protect ourselves when marketers have taken advantage of people's readiness to cut corners. He describes how pharmaceutical reps are trained to offer samples and freebies to doctors until the doctors feel obliged to then lean in their direction. And how our trust in doctors, bankers and financial advisors after working with them for long periods almost makes us bigger marks for recommending actions that may not actually be necessary. As you read these chapters, you get the feeling that we almost expect to be cheated because we might cheat ourselves in similar circumstances.

All in all, the book is a little depressing because it implies that -- since we are all somewhat afflicted by doing things we can get away with -- we may not be so eager to punish others for their dishonesty. No one has been prosecuted for their misdeeds in causing the mortgage debacle, for instance, when previously executives were prosecuted for the Enron and Worldcom frauds. Are we just getting used to these behaviors, even when they almost destroy our economy? Are we so dependent now on the elites that run our institutions that we can overlook these "small discretions" because if they're successful it may lead to improved economies and job creation? Is it becoming more true that the ends justify the means?

Ariely does not offer any specific ideas for curbing dishonesty. For instance, as a professor he is aware that his students use their laptops and cellphones to "multitask" during his classes and that some students may go to essay mills to purchase term papers. He went so far as to try to purchase an essay from one of these "services" to assess the state of that "industry." Upon seeing what he got, Ariely observes, "we were rather relieved, figuring that the day had not yet arrived when students can submit papers from essay mills and get good grades. Moreover, we concluded that if students did try to buy a paper from an essay mill, just like us, they would feel they had wasted their money and wouldn't try again." In other words, it wasn't that it was wrong that they did it ... only that the technology hadn't figured out yet how to provide such services. The onward march of fraud and corruption.

Ariely summarizes that while most people have a propensity to cheat, by and large we all "pass up the vast majority of these opportunities every day without thinking we should take them. This means that we're off to a good start in our effort to improve our moral fiber." My assessment is that if you read the book you'll know better to protect yourself and have some idea of why the people you might have trusted are motivated to cheat.

This is an amazing book. It is not only very well written, interesting and entertaining, one also learns a lot about how people behave and why. Just for example: In one chapter I learned why I should make important decisions only when well rested and on a full stomach. In another chapter one learns that contributions influence people's decisions in favour of the contributors even if the people are aware that their decisions will not be made known to the contributors and even if the people themselves believe to be independent and objective (i.e. a very strong argument against political contributions).