Session 3 (Oct 13): The (in)stability of preferences – part 2
Readings:
- Prospect theory!!
- Eager sellers and stony buyers
= describes number of implications of prospect theory for innovators (people who try
to sell new things to consumers)
Social influences on decisions:
The Trojan horse technique = I let the other person think he is in charge. I hide what I want
in something bigger and more expensive and then when she rejects that we ‘compromise’ on
what I wanted all along.
= Door-in-the-face technique = you ask something large and then something small
←→ Foot-in-the-door technique = you ask something small and then something large
The number dump technique = information overload, impossible to track, you choose not to
choose
Reciprocity = het gevoel dat je iets moet terugdoen / dat je moet compenseren als de ander
dat ook doet. If I do something small for you, you want to reciprocate (often something
bigger)
Response rate is going up when the financial reward increases = not surprising
There is a drop between no
incentives (green) and red one:
“Will you do this for me?” VS “Will
you do this for me and I’ll give you a
dollar?”
→ response rates are going down
Because changing the relationship
from a social interaction to a
financial interaction
Blue: financial incentive already given, unconditionally
Red: financial incentive IF you do the survey
→ if the dollar is already in there, people are more likely to participate
Door-in-the-face → reciprocity
Foot-in-the-door → consistency
Readings:
- Prospect theory!!
- Eager sellers and stony buyers
= describes number of implications of prospect theory for innovators (people who try
to sell new things to consumers)
Social influences on decisions:
The Trojan horse technique = I let the other person think he is in charge. I hide what I want
in something bigger and more expensive and then when she rejects that we ‘compromise’ on
what I wanted all along.
= Door-in-the-face technique = you ask something large and then something small
←→ Foot-in-the-door technique = you ask something small and then something large
The number dump technique = information overload, impossible to track, you choose not to
choose
Reciprocity = het gevoel dat je iets moet terugdoen / dat je moet compenseren als de ander
dat ook doet. If I do something small for you, you want to reciprocate (often something
bigger)
Response rate is going up when the financial reward increases = not surprising
There is a drop between no
incentives (green) and red one:
“Will you do this for me?” VS “Will
you do this for me and I’ll give you a
dollar?”
→ response rates are going down
Because changing the relationship
from a social interaction to a
financial interaction
Blue: financial incentive already given, unconditionally
Red: financial incentive IF you do the survey
→ if the dollar is already in there, people are more likely to participate
Door-in-the-face → reciprocity
Foot-in-the-door → consistency
