Decision-making and biases, modeling preferences, choice vs. advice, behavioral ethics and moral judgment.

Barkan, R., Shani, Y., & Danziger S. (2016). Do as I say, not as I do: Choice-advice differences in decisions to learn information. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 125, 57-66.

Barkan, R., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2016). Revisiting constructed preferences: Extrapolating preferences from relevant reminders. DECISION, 3(4), 281-294.

Barkan, R., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2015). Ethical Dissonance, Justifications, and Moral Behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 157-161.

Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 125-130.

Ayal, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R. & Ariely, D. (2015). Three principles to REVISE people's unethical behavior.
Perspective on Psychological Science, 10 (6), 738-741.

Barkan, R., Ayal, S., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The Pot Calling the Kettle Black: Distancing Response to Ethical Dissonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 757-773.

Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic Advice and Pragmatic Choice: A Psychological Distance Account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1105-1117.

Busemeyer, J.R., Barkan, R., Shailendra, M., & Alok, C. (2007). Context effects and models of preferential choice: Implications for consumer research. Marketing Theory, 7(1), 39-58.

Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T., Diederich, A., & Barkan, R. (2005). Contrast effects or loss aversion? Comment on M. Usher and J. L. McClelland’s 'Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multi-alternative choice'. Psychological Review, 112 (1), 253-255.

Barkan, R., Danziger, S., Ben-Bashat, G., & Busemeyer, J.R. (2005). Framing reference points: The effect of integration and segregation on dynamic inconsistency. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 1-14.

Barkan, R. (2002). Using a signal detection safety model to simulate managerial expectations and supervisory feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89 (2), 1005-1031.

Busemeyer, J.R., Weg, E., Barkan, R., Li, X.Y., Ma, Z.P. (2000). Dynamic and consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 530-545.

Barkan, R., & Busemeyer, J.R. (1999). Changing plans: Dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 547-554.

Barkan, R., Zohar, D., & Erev, I. (1998). Accidents and decision making under risk: A comparison of four models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 118-144.

Prof. Rachel Barkan is the Chair of the department of Business Administration. Her background spans over social psychology (MA, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem), industrial psychology (PhD, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology), cognitive psychology (post-doc, Indiana University) and behavioral economics (fellow researcher, Duke University). She joined the Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management in 2000.

Prof. Barkan studies decision-making and emergence of preference-reversals, psychological distance effects on choice and advice, and behavioral ethics of individuals and professionals.

In her dissertation she modeled the ‘it will never happen to me’ belief, and was the first to document underestimation of small probabilities in decisions from experience. She also modeled people’s tendency to change plans and reverse choices just because they experienced what they wished for.

Rachel and her students highlight differences between choice and advice, showing that people can easily see the forest (offering rational, thoughtful advice) or the trees (making irrational, impulsive choices), but cannot reconcile the two perspectives.

With her colleagues, Rachel focuses on the dynamics of ethical dissonance, and utilizes the accumulated knowledge in behavioral ethics to design effective interventions that help people resist temptation and live up to their desired moral values.

Rachel’s work has appeared in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Psychological Review, Decision, Current Opinion in Psychology, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Perspective on Psychological Science.

Rachel is currently serving on the Editorial Board of Decision, and Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, and she is an Associate Editor in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology