처음에는 따라하기로 시작하는 거네요. 그런데 남의 걸 보고 배우는게 나만의 온전한 취향이 될 수 있을까요?

– 사람들은 취향에 대해서 이중적인 생각을 갖고 있습니다. 처음에는 다른 사람들을 막 쫓아가지만, 나중에는 모든 사람들이 가는 곳에는 가고 싶어하지 않습니다. 결국, 대중을 따라가지 않고 나만의 독특한 취향을 찾아보고 싶다는 생각이 듭니다. 이 때, 취향이 개발된 전문가를 찾게 되고 책을 읽거나 전문가 모임을 찾게 됩니다.

*행동경제학개론
취향 배우기
– #취향 과 #행동경제학 의 관계
– 취향을 배운다는 의미와 배우기 필요성
– 취향의 강요와 #창업 에의 활용
– #주재우 교수 (국민대 경영학과) #KBS1라디오 #경제라디오 #성공예감이대호입니다 #성공예감 #이대호

***

Reference

Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(3), 593.

People often diverge from members of other social groups: They select cultural tastes (e.g., possessions, attitudes, or behaviors) that distinguish them from outsiders and abandon tastes when outsiders adopt them. But while divergence is pervasive, most research on the propagation of culture is based on conformity. Consequently, it is less useful in explaining why people might abandon tastes when others adopt them. The 7 studies described in this article showed that people diverge to avoid signaling undesired identities. A field study, for example, found that undergraduates stopped wearing a particular wristband when members of the “geeky” academically focused dormitory next door started wearing them. Consistent with an identity-signaling perspective, the studies further showed that people often diverge from dissimilar outgroups to avoid the costs of misidentification. Implications for social influence, identity signaling, and the popularity and diffusion of culture are discussed.

Members of the Target Dorm viewed the members of the Academic Dorm as dissimilar, but would they abandon a previously held taste when the geeks adopted it? Results suggested that they did; in the week after the wristbands were adopted by the geeks, there was a 32% drop in the number of Target Dorm members who reported wearing the wristband. This drop was not accounted for by simple boredom. During the same period of time, there was only a 6% drop in wristband wearing in the control condition, X2(1, N=36)=3.78, p=.05.

뭔가 많이 알고 있는 사람, 학식이 높은 사람, 전문 지식이 많은 사람이 지식의 저주에 빠지는 경우가 많겠네요.

– 지식이 깊어지면 지식을 모르는 상태가 어떤지 상상하기 어렵다는 개념은 굉장히 흥미로워요. 왜냐하면 일반적으로 지식이 많아지는 건 좋은 일인데, 잘 모르는 사람과 의사소통 할 때에는 나쁜 일이 됩니다. 학생을 가르치는 교수나 직원과 일하는 기업의 임원이 지식의 저주에 빠지기 쉽습니다.

– 한 기업의 직원분이 흥미로운 사례를 알려주셨어요. 사장님 보고 자료를 만들 때, 팀장님이 ‘수묵화’ 풍으로 만들어 달라고 하셨답니다. 자료가 수묵화풍이라는 게 색감인지 의미인지, 색감이면 흑백인지 여백의 미인지, 의미라면 큰 그림 속에 디테일을 의미하는 건지… 설명해주지 않으셨다고 합니다.

2023.10.12

*행동경제학개론
지식의 저주
– 나만 알고 있는 #정보 의 적용에서 오는 오류
– #지식 의 저주와 비효율성
– 좋은 #소통 과 #자영업자 의 참고점 등
– #주재우 교수 (국민대 경영학과) #KBS1라디오 #경제라디오 #성공예감이대호입니다 #성공예감 #이대호

***

Reference 1

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of political Economy, 97(5), 1232-1254.

In economic analyses of asymmetric information, better-informed agents are assumed capable of reproducing the judgments of less-informed agents. We discuss a systematic violation of this assumption that we call the “curse of knowledge.” Better-informed agents are unable to ignore private information even when it is in their interest to do so; more information is not always better. Comparing judgments made in individual-level and market experiments, we find that market forces reduce the curse by approximately 50 percent but do not eliminate it. Implications for bargaining, strategic behavior by firms, principal-agent problems, and choice under uncertainty are discussed.

—

Reference 2

A Better Way to Ask for Advice (By Adam Grant, October 25, 2023, @ Behavioralscientist.org)

… In a clever study, economists wanted to find out whether students really learn more from experts. They collected data on every freshman at Northwestern University from 2001 to 2008. They investigated whether freshmen did better in their second course in a subject if their introductory class was taught by more qualified instructors.

You might assume that students would be better off learning the basics from an expert (a tenure‑track or tenured professor) than a nonexpert (a lecturer with less specialized knowledge). But the data showed the opposite: students who took their initial class with an expert ended up with poorer grades in the next class.

The pattern was robust across fields: students learned less from introductory classes taught by experts in every subject. It held across years—with over 15,000 students—and in courses with tougher as well as easier grading. And the experts were especially bad at teaching students who were less academically prepared.

It turns out that if you’re taking a new road, the best experts are often the worst guides. There are at least two reasons why experts struggle to give good directions to beginners. One is the distance they’ve traveled—they’ve come too far to remember what it’s like being in your shoes. It’s called the curse of knowledge: the more you know, the harder it is for you to fathom what it’s like to not know. As cognitive scientist Sian Beilock summarizes it, “As you get better and better at what you do, your ability to communicate your understanding or to help others learn that skill often gets worse and worse.” …

… It’s often said that those who can’t do, teach. It would be more accurate to say that those who can do, can’t teach the basics. A great deal of expert knowledge is tacit—it’s implicit, not explicit. The further you progress toward mastery, the less conscious awareness you often have of the fundamentals. Experiments show that skilled golfers and wine aficionados have a hard time describing their putting and tasting techniques—even asking them to explain their approaches is enough to interfere with their performance, so they often stay on autopilot. When I first saw an elite diver do four and a half somersaults, I asked how he managed to spin so fast. His answer: “Just go up in a ball.” Experts often have an intuitive understanding of a route, but they struggle to articulate all the steps to take. Their brain dump is partially filled with garbage….

요즘에는 포장을 간소화한 제품, 아니면 동물복지 제품 등 착한 제품임을 강조하는 제품이 많습니다. 이러한 점을 어떻게 강조해야 할까요?

– 말씀하신 속성을 포함해서 환경, 인권, 공정함 등 착한 속성은 요즘 대학교 학생들이 무척 중요하게 생각합니다. 그런데 착한 속성은 중요하긴 하지만, 제품 하나만 보면 얼마나 좋은지 평가하기 어렵습니다. 이럴 때에는, 착한 속성이 없거나 약하거나 모자란 다른 제품과 적극 비교해주셔야 합니다. 비교를 해야만 평가가 쉬워지고, 평가가 쉬워져야 중요하다는 점을 깨닫게 됩니다…

2023.09.28

*행동경제학
평가용이성의 활용
– #평가용이성 의 의미와 작동 기제
– 비교 대상의 여부로 보는 #분리평가 와 #동시평가
– #자영업자 의 활용과 #브랜드전략 등
– #주재우 교수 (국민대 경영학과) #KBS1라디오 #경제라디오 #성공예감이대호입니다 #성공예감 #이대호

***

Reference

Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3), 247-257.

Abstract

This research investigates a particular type of preference reversal (PR), existing between joint evaluation, where two stimulus options are evaluated side by side simultaneously, and separate evaluation, where these options are evaluated separately. I first examine how this PR differs from other types of PRs and review studies demonstrating this PR. I then propose an explanation, called the evaluability hypothesis,and report experiments that tested this hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, PRs between joint and separate evaluations occur because one of the attributes involved in the options is hard to evaluate independently and another attribute is relatively easy to evaluate independently. I conclude by discussing prescriptive implications of this research.

2020년 코로나 이후 군대에 가려는 미국 사람이 급격하게 감소했습니다. 미군은 더 많은 모병을 위해, 최대 5만 달러의 특별 상여금을 지급하거나, 특정 기술을 보유한 신병이 6년 복무를 계약할 경우 수급 자격을 주는 혜택을 내놓았습니다. 하지만 경제적인 유인책이 큰 효과를 가져오지 못했습니다. 대신, 모집 인원을 늘리는 답은 영화에 있었습니다…

이 사례는 공감격차 (hot-cold empathy gap) 이론을 설명해줍니다. 인간은일반적으로 (차갑고) 이성적이지만, 경험하는 순간에는 (뜨겁고) 동물이 됩니다. 즉, 무언가 경험하는 순간에는, 거부할 수 없는 내장에서 올라오는 요소 (visceral state) 에 지배당합니다. 이러한 요소에는 고통, 성적 충동, 목마름, 배고픔, 졸림, 호기심, 부끄러움, 두려움, 화남 등이 포함됩니다…

2023.09.07

*행동경제학
경험과 감정의 결정체, #공감격차
– 본능(Hot)과 이성(Cold)의 차이와 선택에의 기능
– #진로 , #직업결정 , 오해 등의 원인인 공감격차
– #주재우 교수 (국민대학교 경영학과) #kbs1라디오 #라디오 #KBS라디오 #시사라디오 #KBS1Radio #성공예감이대호입니다 #성공예감 #이대호

***

Reference

Loewenstein, G. F. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.

Abstract

Understanding discrepancies between behavior and perceived self-interest has been one of the major, but largely untackled, theoretical challenges confronting decision theory from its infancy to the present. People often act against their self-interest in full knowledge that they are doing so; they experience a feeling of being “out of control.” This paper attributes this phenomenon to the operation of “visceral factors,” which include drive states such as hunger, thirst and sexual desire, moods and emotions, physical pain, and craving for a drug one is addicted to. The defining characteristics of visceral factors are, first, a direct hedonic impact (which is usually negative), and second, an effect on the relative desirability of different goods and actions. The largely aversive experience of hunger, for example, affects the desirability of eating, but also of other activities such as sex. Likewise, fear and pain are both aversive, and both increase the desirability of withdrawal behaviors. The visceral factor perspective has two central premises: First, immediately experienced visceral factors have a disproportionate effect on behavior and tend to “crowd out” virtually all goals other than that of mitigating the visceral factor. Second, people underweigh, or even ignore, visceral factors that they will experience in the future, have experienced in the past, or that are experienced by other people. The paper details these two assumptions, then shows how they can help to explain a wide range of phenomena: impulsivity and self-control, drug addiction, various anomalies concerning sexual behavior, the effect of vividness on decision making, and certain phenomena relating to motivation and action.