Predictably Irrational: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 47:
🎭 '''9 – The effect of expectations : why the mind gets what it expects.''' At the Muddy Charles, an MIT pub, we poured two small samples—Budweiser and “MIT Brew,” Budweiser with two drops of balsamic vinegar per ounce. Without prior information, most tasters chose the vinegar‑laced beer; when told beforehand about the vinegar, many wrinkled their noses and picked the standard brew. Timing mattered: if we revealed the vinegar only after the tasting, preferences stayed high for the MIT Brew, matching the blind condition, and more people later added vinegar themselves when given droppers and the recipe. In a campus coffee stand, the same coffee tasted “better” when odd condiments sat in glass‑and‑metal containers on a brushed‑metal tray with silver spoons than when they sat in jagged Styrofoam cups with red felt‑tip labels; ambience shaped both liking and willingness to pay. Expectation also shows up in the brain: brand cues for familiar colas can shift neural responses alongside reported taste. The throughline is top‑down prediction—labels, descriptions, and context pre‑activate what we sense, so experience bends toward belief. By managing cues upfront and delaying negative frames when possible, we can tilt outcomes toward what we want people to feel and perceive.
💊 '''10 – The power of price : why a 50-cent aspirin can do what a penny aspirin can't.''' In 1955 the Seattle cardiologist Leonard Cobb ran a bold sham-surgery trial on internal mammary artery ligation for angina: half the patients received the full procedure and half a placebo operation, and the outcomes were indistinguishable—an early, striking demonstration of placebo power. Building on that logic, a lab study attached volunteers to electrodes and administered randomized electric shocks, then gave them a capsule called Veladone‑Rx; when the brochure listed the price as $2.50 per pill, most participants reported clear pain relief, but when the same capsule (vitamin C) was discounted to 10 cents, far fewer felt better. A campus field test with SoBe energy drink made the point concrete: students who paid full price solved about nine of fifteen word puzzles, while those who bought SoBe at a discount averaged 6.5—roughly a 28% drop. When the quiz booklet primed expectations with “more than 50 scientific studies,” performance rose for everyone, but it rose far more for the full‑price group (about 3.3 additional correct answers versus 0.6 for the discount group). Reflection weakened the effect: asking people to stop and consider the relationship between price and quality reduced the discount penalty. The throughline is that price shapes expectations, and expectations in turn shape actual experience—even for objective sensations like pain. Place and presentation set the stage, but the mind’s anticipatory model writes the script, which is why marketing cues can become self‑fulfilling. ''The truth is that placebos run on the power of suggestion.''
🕵️ '''11 – The context of our character, part I : why we are dishonest, and what we can do about it.''' At Harvard Business School, undergraduates and MBAs took a 50‑question multiple‑choice quiz in 15 minutes for 10 cents per correct answer; a control group, which couldn’t cheat, averaged 32.6. When a second group saw the answer key while transferring responses, claimed scores jumped to 36.2; when another group shredded their worksheets before reporting, the average was 35.9; even when they shredded both worksheet and bubble sheet and paid themselves from a coin jar, the mean stayed near 36.1. Replications at MIT, Princeton, UCLA, and Yale showed the same pattern: many people cheat, but only a little, and increasing the chance of getting away with it doesn’t unleash rampant fraud. A moral nudge changed everything: when participants first tried to recall the Ten Commandments, cheating fell to zero and the average score matched the no‑cheating control (about three correct on a shorter matrix task), whereas recalling ten books left room for the usual modest cheating. Signing an honor statement before the task produced the same effect—even at MIT, which doesn’t have an honor code. The evidence points to a “fudge factor”: people want the gains from cheating but also to see themselves as honest, so they cheat only up to the point self‑image allows. Yet when moral salience is made immediate, that internal accounting tightens and cheating stops. ''But if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted, then we are much more likely to be honest.''
💵 '''12 – The context of our character, part II : why dealing with cash makes us more honest.''' In MIT dorms, six‑packs of Coke placed in shared refrigerators vanished within 72 hours, but plates holding six one‑dollar bills sat untouched for the same period—a quiet contrast between taking “a thing” and taking money. A cafeteria experiment then paid students 50 cents per correct answer on a 20‑problem math task: the control group, who couldn’t cheat, averaged 3.5; a group that shredded worksheets before reporting averaged 6.2; and a third group paid in tokens redeemable for cash 12 feet away claimed 9.4. “Total cheating” was rare in the money conditions but surged with tokens (24 of 150 participants claimed perfect scores), showing how a symbolic medium loosens restraints. Field evidence rhymed with the lab: from wardrobe “returns” to padded expense reports sent through assistants, one or more steps away from cash invites elastic justifications. The mechanism is psychological distance—tokens, credit, points, and perks dilute the felt wrongness and enlarge the self‑serving stories people can tell themselves. Bring transactions closer to cash and dishonesty shrinks; push them into abstractions and it grows. ''And that's my point: cheating is a lot easier when it's a step removed from money.''
🍺 '''13 – Beer and free lunches : what is behavioral economics, and where are the free lunches?.''' At the Carolina Brewery on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill, experimenters in aprons offered two‑ounce samples of four house beers—Copperline Amber Ale, Franklin Street Lager, India Pale Ale, and Summer Wheat Ale—and recorded orders and satisfaction. With public, sequential ordering, later patrons tended to avoid duplicating others’ choices and ended up less happy with their beers; the first to order was as satisfied as those in a private‑ordering condition, where choices were written down silently. Running the study at roughly a hundred tables and then switching to private ballots for another fifty showed the same pattern; in Hong Kong, group ordering pushed toward conformity rather than uniqueness, but public choices still reduced satisfaction. The chapter then widens to policy “free lunches,” like Thaler and Benartzi’s Save More Tomorrow plan that tied future raises to automatic savings and lifted contribution rates from about 3.5% to around 13.5% over a few years. Social context and self‑presentation distort everyday choices, but small design tweaks—defaults, precommitment, privacy—can unlock better outcomes without obvious trade‑offs. That is the promise of behavioral economics: if errors are systematic, fixes can be systematic too. ''Our irrational behaviors are neither random nor senseless—they are systematic and predictable.''
== Background & reception ==
| |||