People Reject Free Money and Cheap Deals Because They Infer Phantom Costs.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Pub Date : 2024-04-08 DOI:10.1177/01461672241235687
Andrew J Vonasch, Reyhane Mofradidoost, Kurt Gray
{"title":"People Reject Free Money and Cheap Deals Because They Infer Phantom Costs.","authors":"Andrew J Vonasch, Reyhane Mofradidoost, Kurt Gray","doi":"10.1177/01461672241235687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>If money is good, then shouldn't more money always be better? Perhaps not. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is an ever-increasing incentivizer. If someone will accept a job for US$20/hr, they should be more likely to accept the same job for US$30/hr and especially for US$250/hr. However, 10 preregistered, high-powered studies (<i>N</i> = 4,205, in the United States and Iran) reveal how increasing incentives can backfire. Overly generous offers lead people to infer \"phantom costs\" that make them less likely to accept high job wages, cheap plane fares, and free money. We present a theory for understanding when and why people imagine these hidden drawbacks and show how phantom costs drive judgments, impact behavior, and intersect with individual differences. Phantom costs change how we should think about \"economic rationality.\" Economic exchanges are not merely about money, but instead are social interactions between people trying to perceive (and deceive) each others' minds.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241235687","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

If money is good, then shouldn't more money always be better? Perhaps not. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is an ever-increasing incentivizer. If someone will accept a job for US$20/hr, they should be more likely to accept the same job for US$30/hr and especially for US$250/hr. However, 10 preregistered, high-powered studies (N = 4,205, in the United States and Iran) reveal how increasing incentives can backfire. Overly generous offers lead people to infer "phantom costs" that make them less likely to accept high job wages, cheap plane fares, and free money. We present a theory for understanding when and why people imagine these hidden drawbacks and show how phantom costs drive judgments, impact behavior, and intersect with individual differences. Phantom costs change how we should think about "economic rationality." Economic exchanges are not merely about money, but instead are social interactions between people trying to perceive (and deceive) each others' minds.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们拒绝接受免费的钱和便宜的交易,因为他们会推断出虚假的成本。
如果钱是好东西,那么钱越多越好吗?也许不是。传统的经济理论认为,金钱是一种不断增长的激励因素。如果一个人愿意接受每小时 20 美元的工作,那么他应该更愿意接受每小时 30 美元的工作,尤其是每小时 250 美元的工作。然而,10 项预先登记的高功率研究(N = 4 205,分别在美国和伊朗进行)揭示了增加激励会如何适得其反。过于慷慨的奖励会导致人们推断出 "幽灵成本",从而降低他们接受高工资、廉价机票和免费金钱的可能性。我们提出了一种理论来理解人们何时以及为何会想象出这些隐藏的缺点,并展示了幻影成本是如何驱动判断、影响行为以及与个体差异交织在一起的。幽灵成本改变了我们对 "经济理性 "的看法。经济交换不仅仅是关于金钱,而是人们之间试图感知(和欺骗)对方心理的社会互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
A Race-Based Size Bias for Black Adolescent Boys: Size, Innocence, and Threat. Half Empty and Half Full? Biased Perceptions of Compassionate Love and Effects of Dyadic Complementarity. When Interdependence Backfires: The Coronavirus Infected Three Times More People in Rice-Farming Areas During Chinese New Year. Does Mindfulness Improve Intergroup Bias, Internalized Bias, and Anti-Bias Outcomes?: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence and Agenda for Future Research. Estimating the Reliability and Stability of Cognitive Processes Contributing to Responses on the Implicit Association Test.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1