I have been voraciously reading Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational, and have experienced more than a handful of "aha!", and "hmmm!" moments.  One that just occurred to me is related to his chapter on the effects of an implied social contract or implied market norm on the dynamic within a relationship.

Dan suggests that people behave differently and react differently to stimuli within a relationship based on whether the framework that defines that relationship is of a social nature or more market like.  While this seems intuitive, the practical implications are interesting if you consider the possibilities of moving a relationship from one context into another.  That is, consider the impact of moving a relationship that may be based on social norms now such as asking a neighbor to watch the dogs for a few hours as a favor, or buying a gift for a new girlfriend, into a more market-based norm.  You may now offer to pay your neighbor a few bucks to watch the dogs for the evening, or perhaps gently suggest to your new girlfriend that your gift set you back a few notes.

The risks of moving from a social norm to one more market based seem easy to spot:  your neighbor may not think a few bucks is worth the trouble of picking up after your dogs, or watching them destroy their couch.  And your new girlfriend may not be thrilled to have you point out that "sentimental token" did have a price tag attached.  I found Dan's thoughts on efforts to move in the other direction - from market norms to ones defined more by social contracts- , much more exciting.  Dan's shares a particular example of a Border Patrol officer that didn't feel a need to risk his life for his "government salary".  Dan asks us to consider if the war on drugs at the borders may be more engaging and intense if the officers felt a more personal connection to the cause, or a social committment to the effort rather than an assignment for work.

At a personal level, this chapter made me recall a deal my Dad made with my 7 year old nephew.  My Dad promised my nephew that for every "10 out of 10" my nephew would score on a test at school, my Dad would take him to Toys 'R Us for a new toy.  Of course my Dad is proud of my nephew, and he simply wants to motivate the boy to succeed.  But I think my Dad has inadvertantly determined a fairly consistent market value for that "A" grade.  The scores have turned into currency.  And sure enough, my nephew has racked up a nice cache of Star Wars space-junk. 

But what if he misses the mark on the next test.  Well no big deal right?  He already has plenty of toys!

Now what if my nephew had a more personal or "social norm" based relationship with those grades.  I have no idea what that means per say (I don't know how my Dad would allocate additional units of love or affection or pride in my nephew), but I can see that it could motivate my nephew more effectively.  And this may allow him to personalize the value of good performance at school in a way that will persist far longer than his fascination with Legos and action figures.

Anyway.  Its late and I've rambled enough.  I'll wrap this post up with the thought that remains brightly highlighted in my mind:  Dan Ariely: you rock.