4 ms·
The article says they also valued them 10% higher, meaning they would have been willing to pay 10% more for something which gave them no actual additional value
by manwe150 2y ago
The article says they also valued them 10% higher, meaning they would have been willing to pay 10% more for something which gave them no actual additional value. (although I don't know if the conclusion that sleeping on it made them better at evaluation, or simply more forgetful of what made them different causing a regression to the mean, which also just happened to align with the study design)
- bena 2y ago10% in this case is $2. Hardly anything worth noting. Like, it matters that all the boxes were of equal value. There should have been boxes of multiple values, where the apparent value was on top, in middle, on bottom, and mixed. Then if the snap judges valued all the boxes on the tops, while the sleepers had better estimates, that would say something. But that's not what they did. They made all the boxes of equal value, had them choose. But you can't win or lose. They could have also had people rank the boxes from most to least valuable. Which would be funny since all the boxes are equal. But they didn't do that either. This is the sort of "soft science" study in which the results will never get repeated, but the conclusions will get repeated ad nauseum as some sort of universal truth. Like the marshmallow test, the samaritan test, the Milgram experiment, etc.