6 ms·

Related, via https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluability-and-cheap-holiday-shopping https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluab

by papln 7y ago

Related, via https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluability-and-cheap-holiday-shopping https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3T6p93Mut7G8qdkAs/evaluabili... > According to Hsee—in a paper entitled “Less is Better”—if you buy someone a $45 scarf, you are more likely to be seen as generous than if you buy them a $55 coat. and https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/less-is-better-effect/ https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclope... > When objects are evaluated separately rather than jointly, decision makers focus less on attributes that are important and are influenced more by attributes that are easy to evaluate. The less-is-better effect suggests a preference reversal when objects are considered together instead of separately. One study presented participants with two dinner set options. Option A included 40 pieces, nine of which were broken. Option B included 24 pieces, all of which were intact. Option A was superior, as it included 31 intact pieces. When evaluated separately, individuals were willing to pay a higher price for set B. In a joint evaluation of both options, on the other hand, Option A resulted in higher willingness to pay (Hsee, 1998). So put a fancy trinket in shabby wrapping, for maximum impact.

notafraudster 7y ago
Not really sure why the first one is viewed as "less is better" at all. The design doesn't rule out the idea that someone would prefer a $150 coat to a $45 scarf. To me all it demonstrates is that generosity is at least partially anchored in the quality of a gift relative to the category it was selected in -- I'd rather a really nice scarf than a really crummy coat, even if coats cost more than scarfs. I can experiment this way on myself: if someone got me a gorgeous, $25 pocket square, I'd derive much more utility than if they got me a hideous $300 Men's Warehouse cotton-poly suit. And you could even read this a third way: some objects you want one of (I don't need a second microwave, for instance, even if it's better than the one I own) and some objects you want many of (I would be happy with any bottles of Scotch!) The second study also lends itself to more rational / less "behavioural" explanations. First, it's possible there's diminishing marginal returns between 24 and 31 pieces to the point that f(31) ~= f(24) and f(31) - disposal_cost < f(24). Second, perhaps utility for a dinner set depends on its quality as in the first study. I have a relatively diffuse prior about the quality of the dinner sets, but by learning that Option A has 9 broken pieces, I update my belief so that I now think Option A has 31 crummy pieces and Option B has 24 decent pieces. Maybe the brokenness of the 9 pieces is orthogonal to the quality of the various sets, but in general this would seem to be a good heuristic and a smart use of updating. To take either of these things as a conclusion about expectation setting or less-is-more seems silly to me. More is more, but only in utility terms, not in raw input dollars.
m3kw9 7y ago
Or a 10$ Exotic gummy.
austhrow743 7y ago
From the lesswrong article: >If you have a fixed amount of money to spend—and your goal is to display your friendship, rather than to actually help the recipient—you’ll be better off deliberately not shopping for value. I actually already do this to help the recipient. If you're buying according to someones interests, there's a good chance they already have an equivalent or better of the value option you're considering. Or if they don't, it's because they considered it already and decided they don't want it. When gift buying I use these as guidelines: related to their interests, expensive for its class, consumable, I can acquire it and they can't.
esotericn 7y ago
I don't think it's fair to characterise this as some sort of 'trick'. A high quality item, regardless of cost, is generally going to be far more useful and long-lasting, than a low quality item in a different category which costs more. I would rather own, or buy myself, a $45 scarf than a $55 coat, assuming that the scarf is actually better in its' class and not just a scam (like some designer nonsense with a label on it).
- BeetleB 7y ago
  I think the parent's point was that even though I spent more, I would be viewed as less generous. Instead of buying you that $45 scarf, I'll go even cheaper. I'll spend $25 for a fancy version of something that normally costs only $10. The "trick" is for the purchaser. If I don't want to spend much money buying someone a gift, this is a hack where I can spend as little as suits me, and still be viewed as generous. Of course, the disconnect only occurs when people view all of this as zero sum. This is a classic example of a win-win: Both sides are (legitimately) happy with the situation. There's nothing wrong/evil about it.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Sure, all of that makes sense, but my argument is that you actually are being less generous by buying a lower quality product, even if it's more expensive. The amount of money spent is not the relevant factor. You're not merely "viewed" as such. Consider a limiting case in which I spend thousands of dollars on something you don't want at all and has no resale value. That's not generous, it's just stupid, or possibly even spiteful.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      I think you're seriously projecting (as perhaps am I). Not everyone will view a useless $2K gift the way you would (on both the sender and receiver's side).

by papln 7y ago

notafraudster 7y ago

Not really sure why the first one is viewed as "less is better" at all. The design doesn't rule out the idea that someone would prefer a $150 coat to a $45 scarf. To me all it demonstrates is that generosity is at least partially anchored in the quality of a gift relative to the category it was selected in -- I'd rather a really nice scarf than a really crummy coat, even if coats cost more than scarfs. I can experiment this way on myself: if someone got me a gorgeous, $25 pocket square, I'd derive much more utility than if they got me a hideous $300 Men's Warehouse cotton-poly suit. And you could even read this a third way: some objects you want one of (I don't need a second microwave, for instance, even if it's better than the one I own) and some objects you want many of (I would be happy with any bottles of Scotch!) The second study also lends itself to more rational / less "behavioural" explanations. First, it's possible there's diminishing marginal returns between 24 and 31 pieces to the point that f(31) ~= f(24) and f(31) - disposal_cost < f(24). Second, perhaps utility for a dinner set depends on its quality as in the first study. I have a relatively diffuse prior about the quality of the dinner sets, but by learning that Option A has 9 broken pieces, I update my belief so that I now think Option A has 31 crummy pieces and Option B has 24 decent pieces. Maybe the brokenness of the 9 pieces is orthogonal to the quality of the various sets, but in general this would seem to be a good heuristic and a smart use of updating. To take either of these things as a conclusion about expectation setting or less-is-more seems silly to me. More is more, but only in utility terms, not in raw input dollars.

m3kw9 7y ago

Or a 10$ Exotic gummy.

austhrow743 7y ago

From the lesswrong article: >If you have a fixed amount of money to spend—and your goal is to display your friendship, rather than to actually help the recipient—you’ll be better off deliberately not shopping for value. I actually already do this to help the recipient. If you're buying according to someones interests, there's a good chance they already have an equivalent or better of the value option you're considering. Or if they don't, it's because they considered it already and decided they don't want it. When gift buying I use these as guidelines: related to their interests, expensive for its class, consumable, I can acquire it and they can't.

esotericn 7y ago

I don't think it's fair to characterise this as some sort of 'trick'. A high quality item, regardless of cost, is generally going to be far more useful and long-lasting, than a low quality item in a different category which costs more. I would rather own, or buy myself, a $45 scarf than a $55 coat, assuming that the scarf is actually better in its' class and not just a scam (like some designer nonsense with a label on it).

BeetleB 7y ago
I think the parent's point was that even though I spent more, I would be viewed as less generous. Instead of buying you that $45 scarf, I'll go even cheaper. I'll spend $25 for a fancy version of something that normally costs only $10. The "trick" is for the purchaser. If I don't want to spend much money buying someone a gift, this is a hack where I can spend as little as suits me, and still be viewed as generous. Of course, the disconnect only occurs when people view all of this as zero sum. This is a classic example of a win-win: Both sides are (legitimately) happy with the situation. There's nothing wrong/evil about it.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Sure, all of that makes sense, but my argument is that you actually are being less generous by buying a lower quality product, even if it's more expensive. The amount of money spent is not the relevant factor. You're not merely "viewed" as such. Consider a limiting case in which I spend thousands of dollars on something you don't want at all and has no resale value. That's not generous, it's just stupid, or possibly even spiteful.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    I think you're seriously projecting (as perhaps am I). Not everyone will view a useless $2K gift the way you would (on both the sender and receiver's side).