Rational choices, framing and inertia
| English | Português |
|---|---|
| inertia/ɪˈnɜːʃə/ | inércia |
| framing/ˈfreɪmɪŋ/ | enquadramento |
A decision you can investigate
- A customer accepts an automatically renewed subscription, follows friends’ product choices and reacts differently to “90% success” and “10% failure”.
- Choices can depend on presentation and defaults as well as prices.
Build the explanation
- The rational-consumer model assumes utility maximization within constraints; the rational-firm model assumes profit maximization. Herding copies others; habit repeats familiar behaviour; inertia 惯性 resists changing a current option. Poor computation can distort comparisons, while a wish to feel valued can influence purchases. Framing 框架效应 changes how equivalent information is presented; bias can systematically distort judgement.
- These mechanisms can depart from the model’s calculation, but observing a choice is not enough to prove it lowers the person’s welfare. Convenience, trust or social enjoyment may themselves be valued.
Work through the evidence
- Plan A charges 10 yuan per month plus 60 setup, giving annual cost = 12 × 10+60 = 180. Plan B charges 16 per month and no setup: 192 annually. A headline comparison of monthly prices alone misses the full cost.
- “90% success” and “10% failure” describe the same stated outcome frequencies. Different choices after the descriptions change, with other details fixed, suggest framing. A retained default despite a preferable alternative can suggest inertia, but switching effort may also be costly.
What is Plan A’s annual cost?
Include both 12 monthly payments and the one setup fee.
Test the limits
- Do not conflate habit with herding: familiar repetition differs from following a group. Framing comparisons must keep outcomes and conditions identical.
- A policy that changes a default may help some people yet impose a value judgement about the preferred option. Test explanations using choices, constraints and credible alternatives; do not invent a psychological motive from one observation.
Which most directly illustrates herding?
The observed reason is following others’ behaviour.
An observed habitual choice is sufficient proof that the buyer is irrational.
Convenience, reliability or preferences may make the choice valuable.
Apply and explain your answer
- Which annual plan is cheaper under the stated terms?
- A costs 180 yuan; B costs 192, so A is 12 yuan cheaper.
Which comparison isolates framing most clearly?
Equivalent outcome information changes presentation while other details stay fixed.
Use the terms precisely
- inertia: Remaining with an existing option rather than actively changing it.
- framing: Different presentation of equivalent information influences a decision.
Match the terms to their meanings.
Use each term for its stated economic relationship.
Plan A charges 10 yuan per month plus 60 setup, giving annual cost = 12 × 10+60 = 180. Plan B charges 16 per month and no setup: 192 annually. A headline comparison of monthly prices alone misses the full cost. “90% success” and “10% failure” describe the same stated outcome frequencies. Different choices after the descriptions change, with other details fixed, suggest framing. A retained default despite a preferable alternative can suggest inertia, but switching effort may also be costly.
Do not conflate habit with herding: familiar repetition differs from following a group. Framing comparisons must keep outcomes and conditions identical. A policy that changes a default may help some people yet impose a value judgement about the preferred option. Test explanations using choices, constraints and credible alternatives; do not invent a psychological motive from one observation.
The rational-consumer model assumes utility maximization within constraints; the rational-firm model assumes profit maximization. Herding copies others; habit repeats familiar behaviour; inertia resists changing a current option. Poor computation can distort comparisons, while a wish to feel valued can influence purchases. Framing changes how equivalent information is presented; bias can systematically distort judgement.