Robert Green describes the Law of Fickleness as the tendency of individuals to change their minds, feelings, or preferences frequently and unpredictably. People can be fickle in their decisions, motivations, and allegiances, often leading to challenges in understanding and predicting their behavior.

We are talking here not about the Law of Role-Playing which includes some form of systematic or predictable dissimulations. Fickleness is often not predictable but is subject to changes in the mood, emotions, or whatever factor that comes and goes more or less randomly.

In any case, fickleness complicates whatever rational model we use to understand and predict human behavior. Economics is a case in point. Most economic models assume that people make rational choices. Then, in came Daniel Kahneman.

Daniel Kahneman (1934 – ), a psychologist and Nobel laureate, has made significant contributions to the field by challenging traditional economic models and introducing insights from behavioral psychology. His work has been instrumental in developing the field of behavioral economics, which integrates psychological factors into economic analysis. One of his most important contributions is the concept of prospect theory.

Prospect Theory

Kahneman, along with his collaborator Amos Tversky (1937-1996), developed prospect theory as an alternative to the traditional utility theory in economics. Utility theory assumes that people make rational decisions based on maximizing their utility or expected value. However, prospect theory recognizes that human decision-making is often influenced by cognitive biases and emotional factors.

Prospect theory proposes that individuals evaluate potential outcomes in terms of gains and losses relative to a reference point, usually their current state. It also introduces the concepts of loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity. Loss aversion suggests that people feel the pain of losses more intensely than the pleasure of equivalent gains. Diminishing sensitivity suggests that the emotional impact of gains and losses diminishes as the magnitude increases.

This theory has profound implications for understanding real-world economic behavior, such as consumer choices, investment decisions, and risk-taking behaviors. It highlights that individuals may deviate from perfect rationality due to their inherent cognitive biases and emotional responses. For instance, a change in the reference point brought about by a drop in income contributes to fickleness.

Kahneman’s work has helped bring about a shift on policy-making, finance, and the broader understanding of economic behavior, by providing scientific support to what we’ve always known…

…. That human inconsistency is just that, part of the human condition. A variety of psychological factors that influence decision-making, behavior, and attitudes underlie it. Here are some of the more important.

Cognitive dissonance. When people hold conflicting beliefs or attitudes, it creates discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. To resolve this discomfort, individuals might change their beliefs or behaviors, leading to apparent inconsistency. Imagine a person who believes that smoking is harmful to health and that it’s important to lead a healthy lifestyle. However, he also enjoys a daily. This causes a conflict between belief and behavior, leading to the purchase of Marlboro right after viewing the picture on the pack showing a dissected, diseased lung.

Loss aversion. People are often more sensitive to potential losses than gains: the same number presented as a loss is more salient and therefore more likely to lead to action, than its complement presented as a gain. This can lead to indecision or frequent changes in decisions as people try to avoid perceived losses.

Here is a classic example.

You can choose one of two options. Option A: You receive $100. Option B: You have a 50% chance to receive $200 and a 50% chance to receive nothing. Most people will choose Option A.

According to the principles of expected value, both options logically have the same expected value of $100. However, because of loss aversion many people tend to prefer avoiding losses more than they desire acquiring equivalent gains. So, a person can be inconsistent depending on how the choices offered to him are presented.

Anchoring and adjustment. People tend to rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered (the anchor) when making decisions, then adjust from there. This can lead to inconsistent decisions based on different initial references.

Imagine you’re shopping for a new laptop, and you come across two options:

Laptop A: Originally priced at $1500, now on sale for $1200. Laptop B: Priced at $1100.

Even though Laptop B is priced lower than Laptop A’s sale price, the presence of Laptop A’s original higher price might influence your perception that Laptop B is the better deal. This is an example of anchoring and judgment. This cognitive bias can lead individuals to make decisions that are influenced by the initial information presented to them, even when that information shouldn’t logically impact their choices.

Confirmation bias. Individuals tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them. This bias can lead to apparent inconsistency as people disregard conflicting evidence.

Imagine a person A who strongly believes that people who practice yoga are generally calm and peaceful. She has a close friend B who practices yoga regularly and exhibits calm behavior. Whenever B does something peaceful or calm, A takes note of it and attributes it to B’s yoga practice, reinforcing her belief. But, when B occasionally shows moments of stress or frustration, A tends to attribute those moments to external factors like a bad day at work. She doesn’t let these instances challenge her belief about yoga practitioners being calm. People can be inconsistent by being critical with some issues and play favorites with others.

Emotional influences. Many cognitive biases are emotional in origin. Mood swings, emotional reactions, and shifting emotional states can lead to inconsistent behavior and choices.

Framing effects. How information is presented or framed can influence decisions.

Imagine a medical treatment with two options:

Treatment Option A: This treatment has a 90% success rate. Treatment Option B: This treatment has a 10% failure rate.

Most are likely to choose Option A even though both present the same information about the treatment’s effectiveness; the decision is swayed by the language, context, or emphasis used in the presentation.

Social influence. People are influenced by their social environment and the opinions of others. Social pressure, group dynamics, and changing social contexts can contribute to shifts in behavior and decisions. Peer pressure, bandwagon effects.

Imagine a group of friends planning an outing for the weekend. One person in the group suggests going to a particular movie that has received mixed reviews, and they express excitement about it. As the group discusses the options, most of the friends start agreeing with the initial suggestion due to the enthusiasm expressed. No one wants to be the odd man out, or risk being wrong.

Time preferences. People’s preferences for immediate rewards versus delayed rewards can vary. We prefer short-term to long-term consequences.

Imagine you are given two options for a reward:

Option A: Receive $100 today. Option B: Receive $150 one year from now.

Many will justify Option A with “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” But, in this example, the operating emotion is immediate gratification.

Uncertainty and ambiguity. In situations with high uncertainty or ambiguity, individuals might change their decisions as they gather more information or as circumstances evolve.

Mood and well-being. People’s mood and overall well-being can impact their decision-making and behavior. Changes in mood can lead to changes in choices and actions.

Desire for novelty. The novelty-seeking aspect of human nature can lead to changes in preferences, as people seek new experiences or options. This may be a personality issue, or it may be the result of boredom.

Self-identity and self-image. Changes in how individuals perceive themselves or their desired self-image can result in shifts in behavior to align with their evolving identity. Thus, one who was once systematically a spendthrift can become less so when a Niagara of money falls on his lap. Jack Whittaker’s is a tragic case.

Jack Whittaker, a West Virginia businessman, quite successful, won a $315 million Powerball jackpot in 2002, at the time the largest single-ticket lottery win in the United States. While the win initially seemed like a life-changing stroke of luck, it ultimately led to a series of unfortunate events that significantly affected his life.

It started with the media attention. Then followed a series of unfortunate events: profligate spending, malversation lawsuits, becoming a target and getting robbed at a strip club, strained family relations, and a collapse of his health.

Biological factors. Biological factors such as hormonal fluctuations or changes in brain chemistry can influence emotions and decision-making, leading to inconsistencies.

These psychological factors can interact in complex ways to influence human behavior. Human behavior is rarely perfectly consistent, and understanding these psychological influences can provide insights into why people exhibit inconstancy in various aspects of their lives.

In recognition of his groundbreaking contributions, Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics) in 2002.

Here are some ways to manage the Law of Fickleness.

Recognize that people’s opinions and decisions can change due to various factors. Stay adaptable and open to understanding their shifting perspectives.

Maintain clear and open communication in relationships. Regularly check in with friends, family, colleagues, or clients to understand their evolving needs and thoughts.

Try to understand the underlying reasons for someone’s change in behavior or preferences. Empathize with their experiences and perspectives to build stronger connections.

While people can be inconstant, you can strive to be a consistent and reliable presence in their lives. Your own reliability can influence them positively.

Give people space if they seem to be going through a period of change. Pushing too hard during such times can strain relationships further.

Human inconstancy is complex and multifaceted. While these general strategies can help you navigate this aspect of human behavior, one must consider the specific circumstances and individuals involved.

Next up: the Law of Aggression.

(Q.C. 230824)