With technological changes, there have also been changes to irrationality. We have been bombarded with more information, so making decisions is tough… - Dan Ariely

The basic principle with self-herding is that people don't know what they want very often. Figuring out our preferences is in fact very hard. If I ask you, "What is the best place to eat?" you have many choices. These are hard questions with lots of possible answers. They way we often answer these is by asking, "What have I done before? What I did before must have been a good decision, after all I wouldn't have made it if it wasn't a great decision, let me repeat it." We can consult our preferences or we can consult our memory. It turns out it's often easier to consult our memory.<p>What does it mean to marketers? To the extent that you can get people to behave one way there's a good likelihood that people will keep on doing that later. If you can remind people how they behaved, there's a good chance that they will keep on behaving that way. So the logic suggests that the efforts of marketing should be particularly concentrated when people make first decisions about the product, like people in college who are making first decisions for themselves. It could include product introductions. It could also include things that happen when there's a shift in the economy. The recession caused many people to reconsider their habits.

What we find is that lots of people can cheat a little bit. If we cheat a lot, we … face the possibility that we will feel bad about ourselves. So we play a game within ourselves.<p>Sometimes we think about game theory as kind of a game between two parties. It is also a game within a person. You say to yourself, I want to think of myself as a good, honest, wonderful person. I selfishly want to benefit from dishonesty. It turns out that you can cheat a little bit and still feel good about yourself. That is the general lesson that we find.

I mean, today you probably will have some opportunities to take stuff and put it in your backpack, and nobody would know. You could take some silverware, there’s cups, there’s all kinds of things you could take home with nobody noticing, and no probability of being caught. If you’re a rational economist you would say, you should take all those options, there’s opportunity! But of course you think differently — if you did that, you’d feel you’re a bad person, and that’s what’s stopping you. The curious thing is that what stops us, doesn’t stop us from doing everything. We have a fudge factor, we have an ability to rationalize some dishonesty and as long as we cheat just a little bit, we can still rationalize it.