The Upside of Irrationality

The Upside of Irrationality Plot Summary

Introduction

The day I confronted my professor in the middle of his class was a turning point. I'd been frustrated for weeks as this finance instructor scheduled makeup sessions that conflicted with my decision-making course. That afternoon, seeing my students slip away to his class, something in me snapped. I marched right into his lecture, interrupted him mid-sentence, and publicly expressed my displeasure. The satisfaction was immediate but short-lived. By evening, I realized I'd made a serious error in judgment—one that would ripple through departmental politics for months. We all have moments when emotions hijack our rational mind. From sending angry emails we later regret to making impulsive purchases we can't afford, our behavior often defies logical explanation. But what if these seemingly irrational actions follow predictable patterns? What if understanding these patterns could help us make better decisions? Through fascinating experiments and personal stories, we'll explore how human nature operates beyond pure logic—whether in workplace dynamics, romantic relationships, or our response to suffering. By examining both the costs and benefits of our irrationality, we can learn to harness its surprising power for positive outcomes while avoiding its pitfalls. The journey through human irrationality isn't just about exposing our flaws—it's about discovering the uniquely human strengths that emerge from our wonderfully imperfect minds.

Chapter 1: The High Price of Motivation: When Big Bonuses Backfire

During a research trip to rural India, we set up an unusual experiment. We invited villagers to participate in games testing memory, concentration, and creativity. The twist? We offered them different levels of bonuses based on performance. Some participants could earn the equivalent of one day's pay, others two weeks' pay, and the luckiest group could earn an astounding five months' salary for performing well. Picture Anoopum, who drew the highest bonus condition. Learning he could earn 2,400 rupees—a small fortune in rural India—his eyes widened with excitement. But as he began the first task, a simple labyrinth game where he needed to guide a steel ball through a maze, something unexpected happened. His hands trembled uncontrollably. "This is very, very important," he mumbled. "I must succeed." But the pressure was overwhelming. He failed repeatedly, his anxiety increasing with each attempt. Similar struggles plagued him through all six games. At the end, instead of the windfall he'd hoped for, Anoopum earned just 200 rupees from one partially successful task. When we analyzed the data from hundreds of participants, the results were striking. Those who could earn the medium-level bonus performed no better than those offered the small bonus. But those who stood to earn the largest bonus performed worst of all, achieving good or very good performance less than a third of the time. The result held across different types of tasks—except for simple mechanical ones like rapidly pressing keyboard keys, where higher incentives did improve performance. This pattern mirrors what psychologists Robert Yerkes and John Dodson discovered a century ago with rats in mazes. When electric shocks were mild, rats learned slowly. With medium intensity, they learned faster. But with very high intensity, they performed terribly—too stressed to focus on anything but their fear. Just like those rats, we humans seem to choke under pressure when stakes are extremely high. The simple economic theory that bigger rewards always yield better performance crumbles in the face of our complicated psychological reality. When tasks require cognitive effort, creativity, or complex thinking—precisely the skills needed in modern workplaces—excessive motivation can backfire spectacularly, teaching us that sometimes less pressure yields the greatest results.

Chapter 2: Finding Meaning in Our Work

A student named David once visited my office to share a troubling experience. As an investment banker, he'd spent ten weeks creating an elaborate presentation for a pending merger, often staying past midnight to perfect his PowerPoint slides. When he finally submitted his work, his boss replied: "Sorry, David, the deal is off. I did look at your presentation, and it is impressive work. Well done." Despite the compliment, David was devastated. The knowledge that his creation would never see the light of day had drained all meaning from his effort. This conversation prompted me to investigate how the meaning of our work affects our motivation. With colleagues Emir Kamenica and Dražen Prelec, I designed an experiment using Lego Bionicles—small robot figures requiring assembly. We paid people to build these robots, offering less money for each additional one they completed. The critical difference was in how we treated their creations. In the "meaningful" condition, completed Bionicles were placed on the desk, creating a growing display of the builder's achievement. In the "Sisyphean" condition (named after the Greek myth of endless futile labor), as soon as a participant finished one Bionicle and started on the next, the experimenter would dismantle the completed one right before their eyes. The results were remarkable. People in the meaningful condition built significantly more Bionicles—an average of 10.6 compared to just 7.2 in the Sisyphean condition. Even when payment dropped below $1 per figure, 65% of participants in the meaningful condition continued building, while only 20% persisted in the Sisyphean group. We confirmed these findings with another experiment where participants searched for pairs of letters on a page. When their completed work was acknowledged with a nod, they persisted far longer than when their work was immediately shredded or simply ignored. These experiments reveal something profound about human motivation. We are not merely economic creatures working for payment—we crave acknowledgment, purpose, and the satisfaction of creating something that endures. When companies or managers destroy this sense of meaning through thoughtless policies or reorganizations, they strip away a fundamental human need. The lesson is clear: to motivate people, we must recognize their efforts, provide context for their contributions, and preserve their sense of purpose. Our desire for meaning isn't just a psychological quirk—it's an essential part of what makes work worthwhile in the human experience.

Chapter 3: Falling in Love with Our Own Creations

Whenever I walk into IKEA, I'm filled with visions of how stylish my home could be. On one trip, I purchased a self-assembly toy chest for our family room. The pieces weren't clearly marked and the instructions were sketchy, so I spent hours struggling to put it together, frequently having to backtrack and restart. When I finally completed it, I beamed with pride. For weeks afterward, I would smile whenever I passed my creation, feeling an attachment to it far beyond its objective quality or cost. To understand this phenomenon, which we dubbed "the IKEA effect," Mike Norton, Daniel Mochon, and I conducted experiments testing how people value things they create themselves. In one study, we asked participants to fold origami and then bid to keep their creations. Those who made the origami valued their paper creatures at nearly five times what others were willing to pay for them. Even more telling, the creators valued their amateur creations almost as highly as expert-made origami. In another experiment, we had people assemble LEGO sets. Even when participants built identical LEGO structures following precise instructions, they still placed significantly higher value on their own creations compared to identical ones built by others. Our research revealed four principles of human endeavor: First, the effort we put into something changes not just the object but us and how we see it. Second, greater labor leads to greater love. Third, we assume others share our overvaluation of our creations (they don't). And fourth, when we cannot complete something we've invested effort in, we don't feel as attached to it. This helps explain why semi-homemade cooking (where you add your own touches to prepared ingredients) is so popular, why parents overvalue their children's artistic creations, and why we cherish handmade gifts. The IKEA effect contradicts the simple economic model that views effort as something we always want to minimize. Instead, it suggests that effort itself can be a source of meaning and value. Rather than always seeking the path of least resistance, we might sometimes choose the harder path precisely because the investment of effort connects us more deeply to the outcome. When we assemble our own furniture, prepare our own meals, or personalize our belongings, we aren't just creating products—we're creating meaning and connection. Our labor transforms ordinary objects into extensions of ourselves, teaching us that sometimes the harder way is the more rewarding one.

Chapter 4: When Markets Fail Us

Imagine a traditional society where a matchmaker, or yenta, performed the crucial task of pairing compatible couples. The yenta would learn everything possible about eligible young people and their families, then carefully introduce suitable matches. Fast forward to today's world of online dating, where the market for singles functions quite differently—and not always effectively. Online dating sites ask users to describe themselves and their ideal partners according to searchable attributes—height, weight, income, religion, and interests. This approach treats people like digital cameras that can be fully described by specifications. But human attraction doesn't work that way. We're more like what economists call "experience goods"—things that can't be evaluated until experienced directly, like dining experiences or perfumes. The chemistry between two people often depends on ineffable qualities—the sound of a laugh, a particular expression, or conversational rhythms that can't be captured in a profile. To test this mismatch, my colleagues and I surveyed online daters about their experiences. We found that people spent an average of 12 hours per week browsing profiles and exchanging messages, resulting in just 1.8 hours of actual face-to-face meetings—a dismal 6:1 ratio of search time to actual dating. Participants rated the online portion of dating as less enjoyable than both offline dating and watching a movie alone at home. We then created an alternative: a virtual dating environment where people could explore a simulated space together, viewing images and discussing them in real time. When we compared this approach to standard profile-based interaction, the results were dramatic. After meeting speed-dating style, participants were twice as likely to be interested in a real date with someone they'd met in the virtual environment versus someone they'd met through the traditional online approach. This illustrates a broader principle about markets. When we design systems that don't account for how humans naturally process information and make decisions, those systems inevitably fail us. The problem isn't technology itself but designing technology that fights against human nature rather than working with it. Whether in dating, financial products, or healthcare systems, successful markets must be structured with an understanding of actual human behavior—not idealized rational actors. By recognizing our limitations and incorporating them into our designs, we can create systems that better serve our genuine needs, helping us navigate an increasingly complex world with greater success and satisfaction.

Chapter 5: The Emotional Equation: Short-Term Feelings, Long-Term Decisions

When you're stuck in a traffic jam and someone cuts you off, the flash of anger might last only moments before fading away. But what happens when we act on such temporary emotions? Eduardo Andrade and I designed an experiment to find out whether fleeting feelings could influence decisions long after the emotions themselves had disappeared. We showed participants clips from movies to induce either anger (watching Kevin Kline's character being unfairly fired in Life as a House) or happiness (watching a humorous scene from Friends). We then had them play the "ultimatum game," where one player proposes how to split a sum of money, and the second player can either accept the offer or reject it—in which case neither player gets anything. As expected, the angry participants were much more likely to reject unfair offers than the happy ones, sacrificing their own gain to punish the other player. The fascinating part came next. We waited until the movie-induced emotions had completely dissipated, then presented participants with more unfair offers. Despite no longer feeling angry or happy, people continued making the same decisions they had while under the influence of those emotions. Even more striking, when we reversed roles and had participants propose splits to others, those who had initially been in the angry condition continued offering more generous, fair splits, while those from the happy condition continued making more selfish offers. We called this phenomenon "emotional cascades"—short-term emotions triggering decisions that then become templates for future behavior through a process we termed "self-herding." Just as people tend to follow others' behaviors (herding), we also follow our own past actions, using them as guides for "the kind of person I am" and how we should behave. The problem is that we rarely remember the emotional state that prompted our original decision; we only remember what we did. This explains why a momentary argument might permanently alter how a couple communicates, or why a manager's bad mood one morning could establish a lasting pattern of interaction with employees. The implications are profound: decisions made under the influence of temporary emotions can shape our behavior far into the future, long after the feelings themselves have faded. By understanding this mechanism, we gain the power to pause before acting on negative emotions and potentially create more thoughtful patterns of behavior—ones based on our values rather than fleeting feelings. Sometimes the wisest course is simply to wait until the emotional storm passes before taking any action that might echo through time.

Chapter 6: Adapting to Life's Challenges and Changes

On a difficult day during my lengthy hospitalization for severe burns, I struggled down the hallway to a mirror. What I saw shocked me—a twisted, bandaged body with charred, distorted features. My teenage self-image as a reasonably attractive person was suddenly shattered, replaced by something I could barely recognize as me. At that moment, I wondered how I would ever adapt to this new reality and what it meant for my future, especially in terms of romance and relationships. Years later, as a researcher, I became fascinated by the human capacity for adaptation. With colleagues, I studied how people adjust to their position in what's called the "assortative mating" hierarchy—the tendency for people to pair with others of similar attractiveness. We analyzed data from HOT or NOT, a website where users rate others' photos and post their own pictures to be rated. Our findings were intriguing: people's own level of attractiveness didn't change how they perceived beauty in others (everyone recognized attractive people as attractive), but it did affect whom they approached for dates. Less attractive individuals were very aware of their limitations and strategically pursued partners closer to their own level. In a follow-up speed-dating study, we discovered something even more revealing. While everyone shared the same aesthetic standards, less attractive people had adapted by placing greater importance on non-physical attributes like intelligence, humor, and kindness when selecting partners. They hadn't changed what they found beautiful—they'd changed what they prioritized. This process of adaptation extends far beyond dating. Psychologists Philip Brickman, Dan Coates, and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman famously discovered that both lottery winners and accident victims returned to near-normal levels of happiness within a year of their life-changing events. Our hedonic systems have a remarkable ability to recalibrate, allowing us to find new sources of meaning and joy even in dramatically altered circumstances. Understanding adaptation gives us practical tools for enhancing well-being. Rather than chasing the hedonic treadmill of constant consumption, we can interrupt pleasant experiences with breaks to extend their enjoyment. We can space out purchases rather than acquiring everything at once. We can invest in transient experiences (like travel or concerts) that resist adaptation rather than constant possessions that quickly become background noise in our lives. By working with our adaptive nature rather than against it, we can navigate life's inevitable changes with greater resilience, finding unexpected opportunities for growth and satisfaction even in the most challenging circumstances.

Summary

Throughout human history, we've celebrated rationality as the hallmark of sound decision-making. Yet as we've seen through stories of bonus-driven performance collapses, origami creators overvaluing their paper creations, and emotional cascades affecting long-term behavior, our irrational tendencies are not mere flaws to be corrected—they're fundamental aspects of being human. The corporate executive whose creativity diminishes under extreme bonus pressure, the proud IKEA furniture assembler, the speed-dater who adapts priorities to find love, and the worker seeking meaning in completed tasks—all embody different facets of our wonderfully complex psychology. These insights offer practical wisdom for navigating our complex world. First, recognize that motivation isn't simply about bigger rewards—creating meaningful work environments where efforts are acknowledged may yield better results than astronomical bonuses. Second, appreciate that our attachment to our creations, while irrational from a strictly economic perspective, provides deep satisfaction and purpose. Third, design systems—from dating platforms to financial products—that work with human nature rather than against it. Finally, understand that momentary emotions can cascade into lasting patterns, so pause before acting when feelings run high. By embracing rather than fighting our irrational tendencies, we can harness their surprising upsides while mitigating their costs. The goal isn't to eliminate irrationality but to understand it—creating lives, relationships, and institutions that honor the full spectrum of human nature.

About Author

Loading...

Dan Ariely

From Wikipedia:Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He also holds an appointment at the MIT Media Lab where he is the head of the eRationality research group. He was formerly the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Behavioral Economics at MIT Sloan School of Management.Dan Ariely grew up in Israel after birth in New York. In his senior year of high school, Ariely was active in Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed, an Israeli youth movement. While he was preparing a ktovet esh (fire inscription) for a traditional nighttime ceremony, the flammable materials he was mixing exploded, causing third-degree burns to over 70 percent of his body.[Ariely recovered and went on to graduate from Tel Aviv University and received a Ph.D. and M.A. in cognitive psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Ph.D. in business from Duke University. His research focuses on discovering and measuring how people make decisions. He models the human decision making process and in particular the irrational decisions that we all make every day.Ariely is the author of the book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, which was published on February 19, 2008 by HarperCollins. When asked whether reading Predictably Irrational and understanding one's irrational behaviors could make a person's life worse (such as by defeating the benefits of a placebo), Ariely responded that there could be a short term cost, but that there would also likely be longterm benefits, and that reading his book would not make a person worse off.

Read more

Related Books by Dan Ariely

Loading...

Predictably Irrational

Dan Ariely

The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

★★★★½4.5

Loading...

Dollars and Sense

Dan Ariely

How We Misthink Money and How to Spend Smarter

★★★½☆3.8

Loading...

The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty

Dan Ariely

How We Lie to Everyone – Especially Ourselves

★★★½☆3.9