Behavioral economics without anomalies.

The author wrote a theory paper. He asked: Can we dump the long list of ‘anomalies’ in behavioral economics?

He said yes. People and animals just pick the option with the highest value. The twist is that value drops off in a curved, not straight, line as delays get longer.

All the famous ‘irrational’ choices—preference reversals, self-control failures, probability distortions—fit one curved discount curve. No separate anomaly rules are needed.

The math is simpler. One equation replaces many special-case stories.

King et al. (1990) did the same unifying trick earlier. They merged two delay models into one equation. Rachlin (1995) widens the lens to the whole field of behavioral economics.

Furrebøe et al. (2017) take the next step. They hand behavior analysts the tools—functional analysis, single-subject designs—to test the value rule in real clinics and classrooms.

Yuwiler et al. (1992) seems to clash. Pigeons matched, they did not maximize. The gap is method: short lab sessions pushed matching. Longer, real-world contexts let maximization win.

You can stop teaching clients long lists of cognitive biases. Teach one rule: pick the option that gives the biggest delayed payoff. Then shape the environment so the delayed payoff is clear and reachable. Program curved discounting into token boards, visual timers, or savings games. The same equation predicts both impulsive and self-controlled choices.