Predictably Irrational
"we not only tend to compare things with one another but also tend to focus on comparing things that are easily comparable—and avoid comparing things that cannot be compared easily."
— Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational (2008)
Introduction
| Predictably Irrational | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full title | Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions |
| Author | Dan Ariely |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Behavioral economics; Decision making; Psychology |
| Genre | Nonfiction; Behavioral economics |
| Publisher | Harper |
Publication date | 19 February 2008 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (hardcover); e-book; audiobook |
| Pages | 280 |
| ISBN | 978-0-06-135323-9 |
| Goodreads rating | 4.1/5 (as of 8 November 2025) |
| Website | predictablyirrational.com |
📘 Predictably Irrational distills Dan Ariely’s behavioral-economics experiments into a narrative about the hidden, repeatable patterns behind everyday decision errors.[1] Through vivid demonstrations—from anchoring bids with arbitrary numbers to the “cost of zero” and the endowment effect—it shows how prices, expectations, social norms, and arousal steer judgment in reliable ways.[1] Written for general readers, it pairs anecdote-rich prose with chapter-length investigations that connect lab findings to everyday choices.[2] Ariely’s central lesson is that irrationality is systematic; once recognized, its patterns can be anticipated and sometimes designed around.[3] The book became a New York Times bestseller.[3] HarperCollins issued a revised and expanded edition on 27 April 2010.[4] Its ideas also reached television: NBC’s drama *The Irrational* (2023) is inspired by Ariely’s book.[5]
Chapters
Chapter 1 – The truth about relativity : why everything is relative, even when it shouldn't be
🚦 A subscription ad on The Economist’s website offered three choices: web-only access for $59, print-only for $125, or print plus web for the same $125. In a classroom test at MIT’s Sloan School of Management with 100 students, the print-only option acted as a decoy: 16 chose web-only, none chose print-only, and 84 chose the print-and-web bundle. When the decoy was removed and only two options remained, choices flipped to 68 for web-only and 32 for the bundle, even though nothing else had changed. The same comparative pull shows up on a showroom floor where a salesperson arranges a 36-inch Panasonic at $690, a 42-inch Toshiba at $850, and a 50-inch Philips at $1,480 to make the “middle” set feel right. Menu engineers use a similar trick, placing a very expensive entrée to steer diners toward the second-most-expensive dish. Across these settings the mind seeks context, not absolutes, and small changes to the set of options alter what seems like a “good deal.” Preferences are constructed on the fly, often by a handy yardstick; relative evaluation with asymmetric dominance—the decoy effect—makes a clearly worse option boost the target, so small shifts in the set predictably shift choice.
Chapter 2 – The fallacy of supply and demand : why the price of pearls, and everything else, is up in the air
📈 The story begins with traders James and Salvador Assael and a 1973 encounter in French Polynesia with Jean-Claude Brouillet, whose lagoon held black-lipped oysters (Pinctada margaritifera). With no market for Tahitian black pearls, Salvador turned to Harry Winston in New York, placing a string in the Fifth Avenue window with a lofty price and glossy magazine ads so that high society would read the new gem off surrounding cues. That same process—fixing value by an arbitrary first number—plays out in an MIT Sloan exercise with 55 students led with Drazen Prelec and George Loewenstein: participants wrote the last two digits of their Social Security number on a sheet and then bid in a real auction for a 1998 Côtes du Rhône (86 points in Wine Spectator), a 1996 Hermitage Jaboulet La Chapelle (92 points in Wine Advocate, 8,100 cases), a Logitech TrackMan Marble FX trackball, a Logitech iTouch keyboard and mouse, a design book, and a one-pound box of Neuhaus chocolates. Those with high ending digits consistently bid more; for the cordless keyboard, the top-20% group averaged about $56, while the bottom-20% group averaged about $16, a gap of 216–346% that repeated across items. A table of correlations shows the same rank ordering within product categories, revealing that once an initial number takes hold, later prices fall into line. Value is “arbitrarily coherent”: a random first price sets a reference point, and later willingness-to-pay cascades around it, so demand reflects anchors more than scarcity or utility.
Chapter 3 – The cost of zero cost : why we often pay too much when we pay nothing
🆓 At a booth in MIT’s student center marked “one chocolate per person,” hundreds of passersby faced Hershey’s Kisses and Lindt truffles with prices toggled between two conditions: 1¢ and 15¢ versus 0¢ and 14¢. When the Kiss dropped from 1¢ to free, choice shares swung sharply: excluding those who took nothing, selections shifted from roughly 27% Kisses and 73% Lindt to 69% Kisses and 31% Lindt, even though the relative price difference was unchanged. A cafeteria replication held transaction costs constant by adding chocolate charges to shoppers’ existing bills; the pattern persisted, with free Kisses drawing most takers despite the truffle’s superior quality. Field vignettes show the same pull: a Halloween trade of a large Snickers for one Kiss lost out to a smaller Snickers that was free, and an early Amazon Europe promotion saw orders jump everywhere except France, where shipping was mistakenly set to one franc rather than zero—sales rose only after the price became truly free. Across cases, zero erases perceived downside and triggers a rush that overwhelms cost–benefit tradeoffs, so “free” often leads to worse deals and extra purchases. An affective boost plus relief from loss overweights the 0 and predictably tilts choices toward whatever carries it.
Chapter 4 – The cost of social norms : why we are happy to do things, but not when we are paid to do them
🤝 The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) once asked lawyers to provide services to needy seniors at a steep discount—about $30 per hour—and found few takers; when the request was reframed as pro bono, many agreed. In Israel, Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini studied 10 Haifa day-care centers over 20 weeks: after four baseline weeks they introduced a fine (10 New Israeli Shekels for pickups after 16:10) in six centers, lateness rose and stayed high, and removing the fine didn’t reverse the effect. In lab tasks, small cash payments shifted people into a “market” mindset and reduced effort, while gifts or no pay kept behavior in the “social” domain and elicited more help. When money enters, people start calculating against wages and prices; when it doesn’t, they respond to relationships, reciprocity, and reputation. The pattern is robust across settings where a token payment crowds out the warm pull of social obligation. We inhabit two exchange systems—social and market norms—and money cues flip the frame; once market norms dominate, generosity recedes and behavior becomes price-sensitive.
Chapter 5 – The influence of arousal : why hot is much hotter than we realize
🔥 At the University of California, Berkeley, 35 male undergraduates completed a two-condition experiment on a laptop: in a neutral state and in a sexually aroused state induced by self-stimulation, with responses recorded only when an on-screen “arousal thermometer” read at least 75 percent. Using a one-hand keypad while viewing erotic images, the same participants rated the appeal of sexual scenarios, their willingness to use coercive tactics to obtain sex, and their likelihood of forgoing condoms. Across measures, answers in the aroused state were consistently riskier and less restrained than the answers the same men had given while calm. Crucially, when cool they also underestimated how much arousal would shift their judgments. The results show a stable gap between how we think we’ll behave and what we endorse in the “heat of the moment.” Visceral states predictably reshape preferences; from a cool state we misread the hot one, so precommitments that block temptation are the practical response.
Chapter 6 – The problem of procrastination and self-control : why we can't make ourselves do what we want to do
⏳ Teaching at MIT, three sections facing three term papers became a natural experiment: one section had three fixed, evenly spaced deadlines; one could set its own binding deadlines with a grade penalty of 1 percent per day late; and one had a single end-of-term deadline. When grades came back, the fixed-deadline section performed best, the self-scheduled section landed in the middle, and the single-deadline section did worst. A separate proofreading study paid 10 cents per detected error and penalized $1 per day of delay; participants given evenly spaced due dates found more errors and earned more than those with self-set deadlines, who in turn outperformed those with one final deadline. People recognize their tendency to delay and will precommit, but they don’t set optimal constraints without help. Present-biased preferences derail plans; external structure and credible self-binding—calendars, staged penalties, automatic rules—pull work forward and align actions with future goals. Giving up on our long-term goals for immediate gratification, my friends, is procrastination.
Chapter 7 – The high price of ownership : why we overvalue what we have
🏠 In the spring of 1994 at Duke University, students camped out to earn lottery numbers for a tiny, thunder-loud basketball arena, then crowded the student center to see who had actually won tickets. Watching with Ziv Carmon, I used this natural experiment to call newly minted “owners” and non-winners: sellers, imagining the game they would forgo, asked on average about $2,400; buyers, picturing the cash they would part with, offered about $175—a fourteen-to-one gap. Auctions revealed the same pull: the longer someone led the bidding, the stronger the feeling of “virtual ownership,” and the more they would pay to avoid the loss. Trials and money-back guarantees exploit that pre-ownership—try a “digital gold” cable package and loss aversion makes downgrading feel painful even if the price isn’t worth it. We also cling harder to things we’ve worked on (assembling furniture) and assume others see our beloved possessions through our eyes, which inflates our selling prices. Loss aversion drives the endowment effect: once something feels “mine,” surrendering it looms as a loss, so we overvalue it; choosing from a non-owner’s vantage can blunt the bias. THERE IS NO known cure for the ills of ownership.
Chapter 8 – Keeping doors open : why options distract us from our main objective
🚪 A focusing parable comes from 210 BC: Xiang Yu burned his boats and smashed the cooking pots so his army had to win or perish, and they won nine straight battles. To see how modern minds handle closure, we built a “door game” in MIT’s East Campus: three colored rooms paid uncertain amounts per click over a 100-click budget. In a variant, any door left alone for 12 clicks shrank and disappeared, and participants began wasting clicks just to keep every door alive, even when one room was clearly better. They earned about 15 percent less than participants who never faced closing doors, and when we made reopening a door cost three cents, the wasted clicking continued. Even a “reincarnating” door that could be brought back at no cost still drew defensive clicks, as if mere disappearance were intolerable. The habit scales up: we overbuy “expandable” gear, hoard warranties “just in case,” and spread ourselves thin across activities to avoid saying no. An aversion to irreversible loss, amplified by regret and attention capture, makes us pay to preserve options that drain effort from the best one; closing doors deliberately restores focus and returns. We have an irrational compulsion to keep doors open.
Chapter 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. Top-down prediction bends sensation toward belief; manage cues upfront and delay negative frames to steer experience.
Chapter 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. Price sets expectations, and expectations shape experience—even for pain; place and presentation cue the mind’s script, turning marketing signals into self-fulfilling effects. The truth is that placebos run on the power of suggestion.
Chapter 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. A small “fudge factor” lets people cheat without losing a moral self-image, yet timely moral salience tightens that self-accounting and stops cheating. But if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted, then we are much more likely to be honest.
Chapter 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. Tokens, credit, points, and perks add psychological distance, loosen restraints, and expand self-serving rationalizations; bringing transactions closer to cash shrinks dishonesty. And that's my point: cheating is a lot easier when it's a step removed from money.
Chapter 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. Policy “free lunches” such as Thaler and Benartzi’s Save More Tomorrow plan 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. If errors are systematic, fixes can be systematic too. Our irrational behaviors are neither random nor senseless—they are systematic and predictable.
—Note: The above summary follows the Harper hardcover first edition (2008), ISBN 978-0-06-135323-9.[6][7]
Background & reception
🖋️ Author & writing. Ariely is a James B. Duke Professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and a founding member of the Center for Advanced Hindsight, grounding the book in an academic program of behavioral research.[8] He traces his motivation to months of recovery from severe burn injuries, where painful daily treatments sparked a career-long focus on how people experience pain and make choices under stress.[9] The book adopts plain language by design and uses personal anecdotes to translate experiments for non-specialists.[9] Many chapters pivot on concrete demonstrations—anchoring with arbitrary numbers, “free” vs. priced options, and expectation effects—before generalizing to everyday decisions.[1] The first edition was published by Harper in 2008 as a 280-page hardcover.[6] A revised and expanded edition followed in 2010.[4]
📈 Commercial reception. Ariely’s official site describes the book as a New York Times bestseller, positioning it among the decade’s mainstream behavioral-science hits.[3] HarperCollins released a revised and expanded edition on 27 April 2010, signaling sustained demand.[4] The official page also lists numerous international editions across Europe, Asia, and Latin America, indicating broad translation and rights activity.[3]
👍 Praise. *The New Yorker* highlighted the book as “a taxonomy of financial folly,” praising memorable experiments that make biases tangible (anchoring and the endowment effect among them).[1] *Publishers Weekly* noted the engaging blend of psychology and economics and cited accessible examples such as placebo and price effects.[2] In the *San Francisco Chronicle* (SFGate), William S. Kowinski called several experiments “eye-opening” and found the conversational style well-suited to a wide readership.[10] NPR coverage likewise emphasized how the book explains invisible forces—emotions, expectations, social norms—that systematically shape everyday choices.[11]
👎 Criticism. *The Economist*’s Free Exchange blog found the book “frustrating,” questioning some interpretations of laboratory results.[12] Columbia University’s Statistical Modeling blog argued that labeling the allure of “free” as irrational can be overstated and cautioned about over-generalizing from student samples.[13] SFGate similarly warned that many demonstrations rely on university participants and may not capture broader populations, even while finding the core message useful.[10] Separately, later scrutiny of some Ariely co-authored studies on dishonesty led to a 2021 retraction; a 2024 report, as described by Ariely, said falsified data had been used but found no evidence he knowingly used fake data, a controversy that has colored discussion of his popular works.[14][15]
🌍 Impact & adoption. The book’s concepts have been taught widely: recent university syllabi in behavioral economics at UC Davis and MIT assign or recommend *Predictably Irrational* alongside canonical texts.[16][17] Media interest has remained high: NPR covered the book’s release in 2008,[11] and NBC’s *The Irrational* (premiered 25 September 2023) brought Ariely-style cases to prime-time audiences.[5]
Related content & more
YouTube videos
CapSach articles
Enjoyed this page?
📚If this page Predictably Irrational inspired or helped you today, a small coffee helps us keep creating and sharing more. Your support truly matters.👏
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Kolbert, Elizabeth (17 February 2008). "What Was I Thinking?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions". Publishers Weekly. PWxyz, LLC. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 "Predictably Irrational". Predictably Irrational. Dan Ariely. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 "Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition". HarperCollins. HarperCollins. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Andreeva, Nellie (30 November 2021). "NBC Nabs 'The Irrational' Drama From Arika Lisanne Mittman Inspired By Dan Ariely's Book As Put Pilot". Deadline. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Predictably irrational : the hidden forces that shape our decisions". WorldCat.org. OCLC. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions (review)". Journal of Pension Economics & Finance. Cambridge University Press. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "Dan Ariely". Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Duke University. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 "About Dan". Dan Ariely. Dan Ariely. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Kowinski, William S. (13 April 2008). "Economist finds we're 'Predictably Irrational'". SFGate. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Dissecting People's 'Predictably Irrational' Behavior". WLRN (NPR). 21 February 2008. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "Unexpectedly inane". The Economist. 21 February 2008. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "Book review: Predictably Irrational". Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Columbia University. 31 March 2008. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ Lewis-Kraus, Gideon (30 September 2023). "They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ Hamilton, Isobel (22 February 2024). "Dan Ariely Says His Fraud Investigation Is Over. Now What?". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "Introduction to Behavioral Economics — Spring 2024 Syllabus" (PDF). UC Davis. University of California, Davis. 1 April 2024. Retrieved 8 November 2025.
- ↑ "14.13 Psychology and Economics — Spring 2022 Syllabus" (PDF). MIT Economics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2022. Retrieved 8 November 2025.