In 2011, researchers studying signalling in animals examined diving in the context of communication theory, which suggests that deceptive behaviour should occur when the potential payoffs outweigh the potential costs (or punishments). Their aim was to discern when and where diving is likely to occur, with the aim of identifying ways to stop it.
Type 1, certain goal, in box (Suarez, world cup, handball on line)
Defensive
Payoff for foul, chance to save what would be certain goal
Cost (sending off plus penalty)
Offensive
Payoff, compensation rather than reward, one extra player plus penalty
Type 2, likely goal, in box (Jota, Newcastle)
Defensive
Payoff for foul, chance to save what would be certain goal
Cost (booking or sending off plus penalty)
Offensive
Payoff, compensation rather than reward, possible one extra player plus penalty, reward greater the lower the chance of scoring
Type 3, greater than average chance of goal, outside box (player clean through, GK to beat, brought down from behind), foul outside the area
Defensive
Payoff, probability of no goal
Cost, Foul plus likely sending off
Offensive
Payoff, compensation rather than reward, foul and possible extra man balanced against likely goal
Type 4, little goal threat, in box (player facing away from goal at the edge of the area, tripped)
Or, Handball, ball moving away from goal but in area.
Defensive
Payoff, little
Cost, penalty
Offensive
Payoff for diving, likely goal rather than just possession
Cost, possible booking if acting worse than Steven Taylor
Anyway, my solution, change the rules in light of above
1. Referee has the right to award penalty goal (see 1, possibly 2 above), this is what happens in Rugby
2. Referee can award a foul in the area rather than a penalty (see 4)
3. Referee can award a penalty for a foul outside the area (see 3)
Change the payoffs and costs, changes the behaviour