I think if the data goes insurer -> Ariely -> assistant, and both insurer and assistant present evidence that they didn't do it, then there is certainly a suspi

I think if the data goes insurer -> Ariely -> assistant, and both insurer and assistant present evidence that they didn't do it, then there is certainly a suspiciously large amount of smoke for there to be no fire. Short of CCTV footage showing him doing it, it's hard to get stronger evidence. Yeah, governments love the idea that they can influence the population via simple tricks. That's understandable. Unfortunately nudges are still very much en vogue. COVID was nothing but endless nudging, maybe more like pushing, with tricks like making everything into a social responsibility towards others being deployed endlessly even when not supported by the underlying facts. It worked extremely well. That said, I'm not sure you need psychologists to tell you that "do it for your grandmother" is a powerful manipulation tactic. A lot of the valid findings in psychology are obvious, and the non-obvious findings are often invalid. So we could just defund that field and not lose much IMHO. I say that as someone who has studied psychology. I have a good friend with a PhD in it who thinks the same.