About me:
I use methods from cognitive and social psychology, as well as insights gleaned from behavioral economics, machine learning, human-computer interaction, and whatever else I can get my hands on to investigate consumer behavior and decision-making. My work is primarily focused on: (1) how "new" technology affects the outputs of "old" cognitive systems, (2) consumer financial decision-making, and (3) flexible morality and mind-perception. In each of these areas, my goal is to understand human behavior "in the wild." I want to understand why people do the things they do, as they actually do them--and, perhaps, to help them do these things just a little bit better.
View Article Online
People increasingly use social media to record and share their experiences, but it is unclear whether or how social media use changes those experiences. Here we present both naturalistic and controlled studies in which participants engage in an experience while using media to record or share their experiences with others, or not engaging with media. We collected objective measures of participants' experiences (scores on a surprise memory test) as well as subjective measures of participants' experiences (self-reports about their engagement and enjoyment). Across three studies, participants without media consistently remembered their experience more precisely than participants who used media. We did not find conclusive evidence that media use impacted subjective measures of experience. Together, these findings suggest that using media may prevent people from remembering the very events they are attempting to preserve.View Article Online
Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.View Article Online
When something is wrong, someone is harmed. This hypothesis derives from the theory of dyadic morality, which suggests a moral cognitive template of wrongdoing agent and suffering patient (i.e., victim). This dyadic template means that victimless wrongs (e.g., masturbation) are psychologically incomplete, compelling the mind to perceive victims even when they are objectively absent. Five studies reveal that dyadic completion occurs automatically and implicitly: Ostensibly harmless wrongs are perceived to have victims (Study 1), activate concepts of harm (Studies 2 and 3), and increase perceptions of suffering (Studies 4 and 5). These results suggest that perceiving harm in immorality is intuitive and does not require effortful rationalization. This interpretation argues against both standard interpretations of moral dumbfounding and domain-specific theories of morality that assume the psychological existence of harmless wrongs. Dyadic completion also suggests that moral dilemmas in which wrongness (deontology) and harm (utilitarianism) conflict are unrepresentative of typical moral cognition.View Article Online
When people are the victims of greed or recipients of generosity, their first impulse is often to pay back that behavior in kind. What happens when people cannot reciprocate, but instead have the chance to be cruel or kind to someone entirely different—to pay it forward? In 5 experiments, participants received greedy, equal, or generous divisions of money or labor from an anonymous person and then divided additional resources with a new anonymous person. While equal treatment was paid forward in kind, greed was paid forward more than generosity. This asymmetry was driven by negative affect, such that a positive affect intervention disrupted the tendency to pay greed forward.View Article Online
The breadth of human generosity is unparalleled in the natural world, and much research has explored the mechanisms underlying and motivating human prosocial behavior. Recent work has focused on the spread of prosocial behavior within groups through paying-it-forward, a case of human prosociality in which a recipient of generosity pays a good deed forward to a third individual, rather than back to the original source of generosity. While research shows that human adults do indeed pay forward generosity, little is known about the origins of this behavior. Here, we show that both capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and 4-year-old children pay forward positive and negative outcomes in an identical testing paradigm. These results suggest that a cognitively simple mechanism present early in phylogeny and ontogeny leads to paying forward positive, as well as negative, outcomes.View Article Online
We are creatures of flesh and blood, living in a world of bits and bytes—a world shaped by the Internet. With the simple touch of a button or swipe of a finger, we can instantaneously access vast amounts of information (e.g., Ashton, 2009). A few more keystrokes, and we can interact with friends 10 time zones away (e.g., Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004). Just a few more, and we may complete the transition to a digital life, transferring our identities from our physical bodies to online avatars (e.g., Bessiere, Seay, & Kiesler, 2007). When old cognitive tendencies and new technologies meet—when the world of flesh and blood collides with the world of bits and bytes—the Internet may act as a “supernormal stimulus,” hijacking preexisting cognitive tendencies and creating novel outcomes. The Internet is not changing the way we think, but it may be changing the outcomes of these ways of thinking—particularly in the domains of memory and information search.View Article Online
Many times, people’s minds seem to go “somewhere else”—attention becomes disconnected from perception, and people’s minds wander to times and places removed from the current environment (e.g., Schooler et al., 2004). At other times, however, people’s minds may seem to go nowhere at all—they simply disappear. This mental state—mind-blanking—may represent an extreme decoupling of perception and attention, one in which attention fails to bring any stimuli into conscious awareness. In the present research, we outline the properties of mind-blanking, differentiating this mental state from other mental states in terms of phenomenological experience, behavioral outcomes, and underlying cognitive processes. Seven experiments suggest that when the mind seems to disappear, there are times when we have simply failed to monitor its whereabouts—and there are times when it is actually gone.View Article Online
People often think that something must have a mind to be part of a moral interaction. However, the present research suggests that minds do not create morality, but that morality creates minds. In four experiments, we find that observing intentional harm to an otherwise unconscious entity—a vegetative patient, a robot, or a corpse—leads to augmented attribution of mind to that entity. A fifth experiment reconciles these results with extant research on dehumanization by showing that victimizing conscious entities leads to reduced mind attribution, suggesting that the effects of victimization vary according to the victim’s preexisting mental status. People seem to make an intuitive cognitive error when unconscious entities are placed in harm’s way. They assume that if a moral harm occurs, then there must be someone there to experience that harm—a harm-made mind. These findings have implications for political policies concerning right-to-life issues.Popular Press
Having Your Smartphone Nearby Takes a Toll on Your Thinking
w/ Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneezy, and Maarten W. Bos
Harvard Business Review (March 2018)
View Article Online
Despite wanting to be in the moment, we often find ourselves captivated by our smartphones. We take pictures in the middle of family meals, send text messages during date night, and update our social media profiles while watching movies. At the same time, we are often interrupted passively by notifications of emails or phone calls. Clearly, interacting with our smartphones affects our ability to fully devote our minds to the experience at hand. But can our smartphones affect us even when we aren’t interacting with them—when they are simply nearby?How Google is Changing Your Brain
w/ Daniel M. Wegner
Scientific American (December 2013)
View Article Online
Email for PDF of full article
For millennia humans have relied on one another to recall the minutiae of our daily goings-on. Now we rely on the "Cloud”—and it is changing how we perceive and remember the world around us. In this invited feature article, Dan Wegner and I review some of our research on how—in the words of our editors—"the Internet has become the external hard drive for our memories."
Scientific american: Mind matters
The Neuroscience of Everybody's Favorite Topic (July 2013)Why do people spend so much time talking about themselves?
Read Article Online
What Boston Showed about Human Nature (April 2013)
In the seconds after the explosions came an answer to an ancient question: Are we by nature good, or bad?
Read Article Online
Winter Wakes Up Your Mind—and Warm Weather Makes it Harder to Think Straight (February 2013)
How temperature shapes difficult decisions
Read Article Online
Scientists Probe Human Nature—and Discover We Are Good, After All (November 2012)
Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless
Read Article Online
Men and Women Can't Be "Just Friends" (October 2012)
Researchers asked women and men "friends" what they really think—and got very different answers
-->Most-read Scientific American article of 2012
-->Selected press coverage: The Colbert Report
Read Article Online
What Internet Habits Say about Mental Health (August 2012)
Researchers find clues to depression in what people do online
(with Piercarlo Valdesolo)
Read Article Online
Teaching
Marketing &
Consumer Behavior
Statistics &
Methods
Psychology &
Decision-Making
Marketing & Consumer Behavior
Consumer Behavior in a Digital World (MBA, MSM, and BBA levels)
Professor and Course Creator, University of Texas at Austin (2015-present)
Average instructor evaluation, MBA: 4.81/5
Average instructor evaluation, MSM: 4.84/5
Average instructor evaluation, BBA: 4.95/5
Market Intelligence (MBA)
Post-doctoral Assistant
University of Colorado, Boulder (2014)
Professor and Course Creator, University of Texas at Austin (2015-present)
Average instructor evaluation, MBA: 4.81/5
Average instructor evaluation, MSM: 4.84/5
Average instructor evaluation, BBA: 4.95/5
*2021: Recipient of the Amplify Award for Fostering Diversity & Inclusion
*2020: Named Best 40 Under 40 Business School Professors by Poets & Quants
*2019: Recipient of CBA/Trammell Award for Best Assistant Professor at McCombs
*2016-19: Named to the BBA Faculty Honor Roll (4x)
Market Intelligence (MBA)
Post-doctoral Assistant
University of Colorado, Boulder (2014)
Statistics & Experimental Methods
Multivariate Analysis in Psychology (Graduate-level statistics)
Head Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2012)
Teacher evaluation: 4.63/5
Statistical and Experimental Methods (Undergraduate-level statistics)
Head Teaching Assistant, Furman University (2006-08)
Head Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2012)
Teacher evaluation: 4.63/5
*Received the Derek Bok Award for Distinction in Teaching
Statistical and Experimental Methods (Undergraduate-level statistics)
Head Teaching Assistant, Furman University (2006-08)
Psychology & Decision-Making
Attention, and Decision-Making, and Identity (Undergraduate seminar)
Instructor and Course Creator, Harvard University (2011)
Instructor evaluation: 4.67/5
Psychological Science
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2011)
Teacher evaluation: 4.81/5
Social Psychology
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2010-11)
Average teacher evaluation (two years): 4.53/5
Psychology of Morality
Head Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2010)
Teacher evaluation: 4.64/5
Instructor and Course Creator, Harvard University (2011)
Instructor evaluation: 4.67/5
*Received the George W. Goethals Award for Excellence in Teaching
Psychological Science
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2011)
Teacher evaluation: 4.81/5
*Received the Derek Bok Award for Distinction in Teaching
Social Psychology
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2010-11)
Average teacher evaluation (two years): 4.53/5
*Received the Derek Bok Award for Distinction in Teaching
Psychology of Morality
Head Teaching Fellow, Harvard University (2010)
Teacher evaluation: 4.64/5
*Received the Derek Bok Award for Distinction in Teaching
Selected Student Comments:
“Honestly, the best course I have taken at McCombs. I have recommended it to every marketing student I know. I looked forward to every class and genuinely enjoyed what we learned. Each lecture was a great mix of informative and entertaining, and even the slides were all visually appealing!” (Course: Consumer Behavior in a Digital World, BBA)“This was a great course--probably my favorite I have taken at McCombs. Very relevant to marketing, but provides a great break from the standard case-based class. Professor Ward is very knowledgeable and makes the class fun. A+” (Course: Consumer Behavior in a Digital World, MBA)
“Adrian is a phenomenal teacher. He is EXTREMELY engaging and had a very fair, balanced approach to the course. It was a pleasure to bounce ideas around with him every week. He really hit all the marks of a great teacher and then some.” (Course: Identity, Attention, and Decision-Making)
“Adrian, like no other teacher I’ve ever had, arrived to class with a passion for the subject that inspired an equal passion within the rest of us. He’s smart, thoughtful, respectful, encouraging, funny, helpful and every other characteristic you hope your teacher has. Both as a person and as a teacher, he is truly exceptional.” (Course: Psychological Science)