Guy Hochman
Guy Hochman completed his university studies in Israel and received a PhD degree in Psychology from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in 2010. Dr. Hochman was a post-doc at the Fuqua School of Business in Duke University under the supervision of Professor Dan Ariely. Currently, He is the head of the MA program in Behavioral Economics at IDC. Dr. Hochman’s main research interests are heuristics and biases, behavioral economics, pro-social and anti-social behavior, and the cognitive processes underlie decision making. In addition, Dr. Hochman study brain processes and physiological measures such as Pupil Diameter and Heart Rate, and their relation to behavioral decision making. Dr. Hochman’s research interest also include organizational behavior, and during his time in Duke University he conducted multiple research projects among American firms, in an attempt to better understand how employees could be better incentivized and motivated, and how decision making research could be implemented to create better management and marketing strategies.
Phone: +0092799602422
Phone: +0092799602422
less
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
Papers by Guy Hochman
enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects
of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral
behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated with it. To this end, we
employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase, participants played one round of a
bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study 1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in
which we manipulated whether the players had been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the second phase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gain at the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participants also took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the second phase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated that the opponent’s dishonesty was a stronger driver than the opponent’s unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, the physiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (and not just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating the offender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.
enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects
of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral
behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated with it. To this end, we
employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase, participants played one round of a
bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study 1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in
which we manipulated whether the players had been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the second phase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gain at the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participants also took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the second phase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated that the opponent’s dishonesty was a stronger driver than the opponent’s unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, the physiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (and not just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating the offender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.