This article uses a humanistic paradigm and its four-drive theory as an analytical tool to signal occasional paradigm shifts from economistic, to humanistic, to predatory markets. In predatory market conditions (so-called “predatory mortgages,” for example), the drive to acquire may be distorted to generate dysfunctional financial behaviors, so that the markets then experience increased friction. We provide the results of an empirical study that differentiates predatory paradigms from non-predatory paradigms (either humanistic or economistic). Market agents in predatory markets build debt based on risky behaviors, disconnection from their needs, goals, and preferences, through the so-called “consumer financial spinning.” In stark contrast, consumers in non-predatory market conditions build debt based on deceit and disconnection alone. Our analysis may assist marketers at banking, financial, and regulatory organizations to reinforce the quality monitoring of their services through, for example, in-house surveys, and to better understand the risk of dysfunctional behaviors that borrowers may represent depending on which of the three market paradigms prevails.