Context effect in Britain’s Got Talent?
I got this suggestion from Thomas Aedy in Eton College in the UK:
Dear Dan,
The final for Britain’s Got Talent was on Saturday June 30th and this final was very interesting because it involved 3 choices, 2 of which were very similar, and 1 of which was different. In our show, viewers have to vote in by telephone on the night of the show for a winner to be decided, and there was some shock when the favorite (Susan Boyle – a singer) didn’t win, and lost out to one of two dance groups (Diversity were the winners, Flawless were the other dance group) – whilst the dance group were very good, most people thought that the singer would edge win.
I think this is a case of relativism:
Option A – Singer – Susan Boyle who was generally regarded (before the final) as the favorite contender for the win
Option B – Dance group – Diverstiy
* Probably the better of the two dance groups – more creativity and flair, and possibly more entertaining
* That is largely my view, although their victory in the competition would suggest that they were the better of the two dance groups
Option B’ – Dance group – Flawless
* Also a very talented dance group, but more straightforward dancing – not very many surprises from them
* We could view them as the ‘dud’ choice of the two (although this is somewhat harsh)
General points
* Frankly impossible to judge who were the best of all three – all of them were very talented, but it is impossible for most viewers to try and think whether Option B was better than Option A (comparing singing and dancing)
* However, on the night, it is fair to say that Option B was better than Option B’
* Thus whilst most found it impossible to establish who was better of A and B – it was clear that B was better than B’, and this made it easier to select an overall winner (which would be Option B)
In my mind this could be seen as an example of relativism
Very best wishes,
Thomas Aedy
PS: YouTube videos of the 3 acts if you’re interested.
Option A (singer) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2xiAQCTy2E
Option B (dance) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIz8BgRQc0
Option B’ (dance) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY9I6pxnVpM
————-
I did not watch this show — but I find the idea plausible and interesting.
Dan
The Upside of Irrationality, explores some positive and some negative ways that irrationality plays out in our lives.
I do believe the finale was on May 30th and not June 30th, at least this year.
Almost like it is right out of your book. Great observation.
Hi my name is David I am an MBA student at Baruch College I recently read your book and I was wondering why you gave up on pursuing your idea for a smart card as I believe it will predictably a big success. Even if the first banks you spoke to didnt go for it I am sure their are many others who would be very interested.
Kindle, Amazon’s wireless device has had so-so sales. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a new larger version of the Kindle and assessed it as larger, but not better. It is priced about $200 more than the original version. Having just read Predictably Irrational I wondered if the Kindle people had read the same thing and came out with the larger, more expensive version in order to sell more of the original one. (I don’t know how much a wireless reader is worth or whether I would enjoy it, but the smaller seems a relatively better value than the larger more expensive one.)
Given that we are more sensitive to pain, and that we can easily discern between the dud and the better option, maybe we go for the better option to avoid the danger associated with the dud. How many times better must option A be to choose it over B (where B’ would be the dud).
I wonder what kind of experiment would support this idea.
This whole research topic sounds similar to the reasons why the police doesn’t line up suspects anymore; instead, you are given a convict one at a time. The classical approach resulted in too many felons, as I understand, where people ended up choosing the guy who looked most like the criminal, rather then the criminal.
To Mr. Ariely,
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to you for reading my comments. I’ve been introduced to your works by Mr Tom Peters, and as far as I can see, your works is very excellence, and THANK YOU for sharing it.
However, I encountered several issues which I really hope that you can give some views or findings on these issues.
1.On social norms situations.
(a) I think, it is fine to ask another person a small favor once in a while, but what do you think if the same small favor being requested again- and- again to that same person. Don’t you think that the person, even willingly comply and commit to perform that favor will be expected something in return from you? And, is this going to convert the relationship to the market norm situations – even if the return will be in the form of gift or in-return favor from the person you asked for their favors earlier.
(b) Why this, asking for favors, only works best to the person outside your family members and not to the person in your own family, especially with your own siblings? even to your own parents.
2.On free – zero cost subjects
If you offered a group of people free products or services, will they be expecting the offer to be a recurring events in the future. For example, if you offered free club membership fee for a year, is this will resulted in the new members who join during that year and the current members who get the fee waived for a year be expecting this policy to be continue again in the future? And, what will happen with both members motivation level if they realised that they need to pay the memberships fee next year? Is this will resulted in drop of new memberships for the year to come, or the current members quit the club?
In case, you had already deal and/ or discussed with all this issues in your book, can you please highlight the area that I might have carelessly miss from my reading.
Thank You
Yours sincerely
Izwan
The public actually voted on all 10 acts at the same time. The three acts you listed where the top three in the voting.
Without the actual voting scores I don’t think it is possible to assess any ‘context effect’. The three acts might have been separated by a few percentage points, with little or no context effect or the difference may have been significant.
thanks tim, exactly what i was thinking.
other considerations would be, that all the world was talking about susan boyle, but what was the prevalent thought among those ppl that actually watch and vote on the show? apparently it was manly young voters that weren’t enchanted by boyle at all, who decided in the end..
plus there’s always the conspiracy theory
PS: the book is awesome!