today1.pptx

How we choose by comparing with a nearby reference point Anchoring Past Expected Future Alternative Nearby additional Relevant Observed Current Multiple Alternative Our choices and our satisfaction are driven by the comparisons we make Behavioral Economics Concepts Past Expected Future Alternative Nearby additional Relevant Observed Current Multiple Alternative Hedonic Adaptation Placebo Effect; Stereotypes Peer Effects; Relative Standing Endogenous Determination of Time Preference Loss Aversion; Endowment Effect; Status Quo Bias Availability Effects Paradox of Choice Anchoring; Next, each bid the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for each item. Did the initial ?anchor? amount influence each student?s ultimate bids? In this experiment, business students were asked if they would pay the last 2 digits of their social security numbers for each of several items (e.g., 34 = $34) ?Although students were reminded that the social security number is a random quantity conveying no information, those who happened to have high social security numbers were willing to pay much more for the products.? Ariely, D. (MIT), Lowenstein, G. (Carnegie Mellon), & Prelec, D. (MIT), 2006, Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-10. Experiment: Business students were told their professor would be doing a 15-minute poetry reading. Half were asked if they would be willing to pay $2 to attend and half were asked if they would be willing to attend if they were paid $2. After answering, students were then told that the poetry reading would be free and were asked if they wanted to attend. Question: Would the initial anchoring of the experience?s value affect who would attend for free? Ariely, D. (MIT), Lowenstein, G. (Carnegie Mellon), & Prelec, D. (MIT), 2006, Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-10. Ariely, D. (MIT), Lowenstein, G. (Carnegie Mellon), & Prelec, D. (MIT), 2006, Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-10. Perhaps students were just using price as an estimate of unknown quality? Experiment #2: Now the professor first read poetry for 1 minute so that students actually experienced it. Then one group was asked if they would be willing to pay to attend, the other group if they would be willing to attend if paid. Question: Would the anchoring effect go away when people were allowed to sample the experience first? Ariely, D. (MIT), Lowenstein, G. (Carnegie Mellon), & Prelec, D. (MIT), 2006, Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-10. Ariely, D. (MIT), Lowenstein, G. (Carnegie Mellon), & Prelec, D. (MIT), 2006, Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-10. Experiment with two types of subscription offers to The Economist magazine. Which offer do you think was most popular? The first The second The third All were about equal The first and third were about equal When these three choices were presented? 16% 0% 84% Some were given only these two choices. Should the preferences be different for those without the second choice? When only two choices were presented? 16% 84% 68% 32% 0% X Nearby comparison and choice [anchoring and adjustment] The presence of the comparably worse nearby option, made the third option seem better. 16% 84% Nearby comparison and choice Without the comparably worse nearby option, the relative preference reversed. 16% 84% 68% 32% Nearby comparison and choice First group could have either $9 or a nice pen Second group could have $9, a nice pen, or an uglier pen Nearby comparison drives choice [anchoring and adjustment] Simonson, I. (UC-Berkeley) & Tversky, A. (Stanford), 1992, Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extreme aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295. Group A Group B $9 64% 52% Cross pen 36% 46% Ugly pen 2% n 106 115 ?Williams-Sonoma, a mail-order and retail business located in San Francisco, used to offer one home bread maker priced at $275. Later, a second home bread maker was added, which had similar features except for its larger size. The new item was priced more than 50% higher than the original bread maker. Williams-Sonoma did not sell many units of the new (relatively overpriced) item, but the sales of the less expensive bread maker almost doubled.? Simonson, I. (Stanford), 1999, The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences, Journal of Retailing, 75(3), 347-370. When bread makers were new? Is this grill expensive? Beefeater Signature SL - 6 Burner BBQ $5,984.05 from www.barbecue-grill-guide.com How about now? Beefeater Signature SL - 6 Burner BBQ $5,984.05 $6,299.00 from www.barbecue-grill-guide.com And now? Beefeater Signature SL - 6 Burner BBQ $5,984.05 $6,299.00 from www.barbecue-grill-guide.com How about now? Beefeater Signature SL - 6 Burner BBQ $5,984.05 $6,299.00 from www.barbecue-grill-guide.com $12,500.00 Beefeater Signature SL - 6 Burner BBQ: Gold Plated Edition Producers want to anchor to a higher priced alternative Even if it means creating an artificial alternative Producers avoid anchoring to a lower priced alternative Differentiation is key If we anchored Starbucks coffee by Dunkin Donuts coffee, would we buy Starbucks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaO3aGmuNFc Anchoring in physical attraction? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI 14:30-15:54 Anchoring shows excessive influence of nearby comparisons Conclusion You can change your nearby comparisons by changing your environment or your focus within your environment. Be intentional about choosing comparisons, instead of automatically using the easy anchor. Mary is seriously overspending her income. Today, she buys these Escada shoes because they are marked down from $995 to $895. And also the matching $995 clutch purse, because it is 20% off if purchased as a set. How might anchoring bias have affected her decision? How might she reframe her view of the price that would make the ?good deal? easier to resist?