4 ms·

I didn't much like this: "being swayed by the way in which questions are worded rather than responding just to their substance" (for the lost ticket being alleg

by Vivtek 15y ago

I didn't much like this: "being swayed by the way in which questions are worded rather than responding just to their substance" (for the lost ticket being allegedly equivalent to $10). Is a ticket, which costs $10, emotionally equivalent to $10? Once bought, the ticket is unique in my eyes, whereas I'm not even sure how many $10 bills I have in my wallet even now. So if I lose one, well, maybe it wasn't there in the first place. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the impact of the ticket loss and the impact of loss of a $10 bill are not equivalent in terms of substance. Unless you're an economist.

yariang 15y ago
I would dare say unless you're rational, not necessarily an economist. Most of us are not rational all the time, and the whole point of the question is to show an instance where we are not. You would be correct if there were not other tickets available; in that case, the ticket truly is unique. But in the example given you could acquire another one. In that case the ticket is not unique and is equivalent to the cost of acquiring another one, which is $10.
- amireza 15y ago
  Is it rational to considers unknown possibilities and assigns gain to them and then decide, and if so what would be the numbers?
- chrischen 15y ago
  But I believe it is the duty of the ticket vendor to keep track of who bought tickets. In protest, I would not replace a ticket if I lost it, but if I lost $10 it is completely my responsibility. Is this not rational if I believe I can affect change through the action?
  - yariang 15y ago
    That's an entirely different issue than the one I was responding to. In that case, it would be rational if your actions could reasonably affect change, which in this case I don't think they would. First, I don't see an obvious need for theaters to keep track of who purchased tickets--save the case of online transactions obviously. Granted, the whole example is contrived--but I don't see the utmost need for it. And, even if they had a moral imperative to do so and didn't, this would mostly affect people--by definition--who purchased a ticket already, and either lost it or want to return it or something of that nature. It is safe to assume few people lose their tickets and of those that do, not all of them protest by not buying another one. Protests are usually only effective if they hurt the company in terms of reputation or money. Since that is unlikely (given the vague probabilities I mentioned and specially because you already paid for one ticket), your protest will most likely be in vain. We could of course get into a philosophical debate over the worth of such protest, but this is neither the time or place. Protesting the theater record-keeping policies in the way you mention and for the reasons you mention would probably be, in my opinion and with all the information you provided, rationally irrational.
    - chrischen 15y ago
      Um... if I buy another ticket then I help them. So not buying them denies the sale. So it DOES have a measurable effect.
limeblack 15y ago
Well I also didn't like that question but for a different reason. "As you enter the theater, you discover that you have lost the ticket. The theater keeps no record of ticket purchasers, so the ticket cannot be recovered." Considering how clever they were being in the first couple questions, I assumed it was a trick. People typically give their tickets to the person at the booth outside the theater. Considering I am in the theater already I haven't lost my ticket, but simple given to the men as I walked inside. I'm just forgetful I did so. Over thinking it I guess...
Vivtek 15y ago
Actually, it's even worse than that. If this theater has customer service this lousy, I'm not sure I want to give them my business anyway...
rayiner 15y ago
That's kind of the whole point of the research. Neoclassical economics assumes certain things about peoples' utility functions that aren't true. For example, even though you can ascribe utility to going on a date, there should be no difference between not going on a date at all and having to cancel a date you had expected to go on. Obviously people don't view things that way. Or, to use another example from Kahneman's work, getting a $5,000 raise out of the blue is perceived as very different than getting a $5,000 raise after your boss had told you to expect a $10,000 raise. Or, for that matter, after your coworker got a $10,000 raise. From the standpoint of neoclassical economics, these outcomes should be the same, but clearly they're not. Delving into the psychology of the rational actor in this way is a pretty fundamental change in economics.
usaar333 15y ago
I actually find it very useful to emotionally detach from a commodity - that is treat all tickets to the movie theater as the same. I generally find it bad to fall into the sunk-cost effect and I am much happier when I avoid it.
- roel_v 15y ago
  A pet peeve of mine in this regard is about throwing away food that is left on a plate. Many people feel a moral duty (often instilled in them from a young age) to eat everything that is on a plate, even if eating that last 10% would make them feel uncomfortable for an hour and would have no utility from a dietary point of view (actually have negative utility, since it only increases their fat intake). Yet I have a hard time convincing people of this, and some people sometimes feel the need to scold me for throwing away food. Despite that, I've been better off since I internalized the true nature of this (daily recurring) situation.
Someone 15y ago
What I found weird about at case is that it did not consider the investment made by going to the theater. The time spent to go to the theater will be significant relative to that $10 ticket. And that is even ignoring travel and parking costs, and the fact that, by going to the theatre, you cut out other options of spending the night. Because of that, I think most people would buy a new ticket.

by Vivtek 15y ago

yariang 15y ago

I would dare say unless you're rational, not necessarily an economist. Most of us are not rational all the time, and the whole point of the question is to show an instance where we are not. You would be correct if there were not other tickets available; in that case, the ticket truly is unique. But in the example given you could acquire another one. In that case the ticket is not unique and is equivalent to the cost of acquiring another one, which is $10.

amireza 15y ago
Is it rational to considers unknown possibilities and assigns gain to them and then decide, and if so what would be the numbers?
chrischen 15y ago
But I believe it is the duty of the ticket vendor to keep track of who bought tickets. In protest, I would not replace a ticket if I lost it, but if I lost $10 it is completely my responsibility. Is this not rational if I believe I can affect change through the action?
- yariang 15y ago
  That's an entirely different issue than the one I was responding to. In that case, it would be rational if your actions could reasonably affect change, which in this case I don't think they would. First, I don't see an obvious need for theaters to keep track of who purchased tickets--save the case of online transactions obviously. Granted, the whole example is contrived--but I don't see the utmost need for it. And, even if they had a moral imperative to do so and didn't, this would mostly affect people--by definition--who purchased a ticket already, and either lost it or want to return it or something of that nature. It is safe to assume few people lose their tickets and of those that do, not all of them protest by not buying another one. Protests are usually only effective if they hurt the company in terms of reputation or money. Since that is unlikely (given the vague probabilities I mentioned and specially because you already paid for one ticket), your protest will most likely be in vain. We could of course get into a philosophical debate over the worth of such protest, but this is neither the time or place. Protesting the theater record-keeping policies in the way you mention and for the reasons you mention would probably be, in my opinion and with all the information you provided, rationally irrational.
  - chrischen 15y ago
    Um... if I buy another ticket then I help them. So not buying them denies the sale. So it DOES have a measurable effect.

limeblack 15y ago

Well I also didn't like that question but for a different reason. "As you enter the theater, you discover that you have lost the ticket. The theater keeps no record of ticket purchasers, so the ticket cannot be recovered." Considering how clever they were being in the first couple questions, I assumed it was a trick. People typically give their tickets to the person at the booth outside the theater. Considering I am in the theater already I haven't lost my ticket, but simple given to the men as I walked inside. I'm just forgetful I did so. Over thinking it I guess...

Vivtek 15y ago

Actually, it's even worse than that. If this theater has customer service this lousy, I'm not sure I want to give them my business anyway...

rayiner 15y ago

That's kind of the whole point of the research. Neoclassical economics assumes certain things about peoples' utility functions that aren't true. For example, even though you can ascribe utility to going on a date, there should be no difference between not going on a date at all and having to cancel a date you had expected to go on. Obviously people don't view things that way. Or, to use another example from Kahneman's work, getting a $5,000 raise out of the blue is perceived as very different than getting a $5,000 raise after your boss had told you to expect a $10,000 raise. Or, for that matter, after your coworker got a $10,000 raise. From the standpoint of neoclassical economics, these outcomes should be the same, but clearly they're not. Delving into the psychology of the rational actor in this way is a pretty fundamental change in economics.

usaar333 15y ago

I actually find it very useful to emotionally detach from a commodity - that is treat all tickets to the movie theater as the same. I generally find it bad to fall into the sunk-cost effect and I am much happier when I avoid it.

roel_v 15y ago
A pet peeve of mine in this regard is about throwing away food that is left on a plate. Many people feel a moral duty (often instilled in them from a young age) to eat everything that is on a plate, even if eating that last 10% would make them feel uncomfortable for an hour and would have no utility from a dietary point of view (actually have negative utility, since it only increases their fat intake). Yet I have a hard time convincing people of this, and some people sometimes feel the need to scold me for throwing away food. Despite that, I've been better off since I internalized the true nature of this (daily recurring) situation.

Someone 15y ago

What I found weird about at case is that it did not consider the investment made by going to the theater. The time spent to go to the theater will be significant relative to that $10 ticket. And that is even ignoring travel and parking costs, and the fact that, by going to the theatre, you cut out other options of spending the night. Because of that, I think most people would buy a new ticket.