砍價心理學：價格買家說了算反而沒人敢買？

編者按：經濟人(希臘語：homooeconomicus)，即假定人思考和行爲都是目標理性的，唯一地試圖獲得的經濟好處就是物質性補償的最大化。常用作經濟學和某些心理學分析的基本假設。西方古典經濟學中的“經濟人”假設，認爲人具有完全的理性，可以做出讓自己利益最大化的選擇。1978年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主西蒙修正了這一假設，提出了“有限理性”概念，認爲人是介於完全理性與非理性之間的“有限理性”狀態。

What happens when people can pick their own price for a product?

買主若能隨意定價，將會怎樣？

EARLY in the study of economics, students are introduced to Homo economicus, a rough caricature of a human being with an eye to extracting the maximum personal advantage from any given situation. In the real world, of course, human behaviour is much more complicated than that. One example is a pricing strategy called “pay what you want”， in which customers are allowed to choose any price—even zero—for a good. Despite the obvious benefit of getting something for nothing, many people nevertheless choose to pay. The model hit the news in 2007 when Radiohead, a British band, released their album “In Rainbows” on the internet with just such a pricing arrangement。

早期的經濟學研究向學生們引介了“經濟人”這一概念，諷刺人們處處鸇視狼顧，貪圖個人利益的最大化。然而，人們在現實世界中的行爲可比這複雜得多了。比方說，一種“隨你付”的定價策略允許顧客爲商品隨意出價，甚至可以不掏錢。雖說明擺着，這種定價策略可以讓人們白拿東西，很多人還是會付錢。這種模式在2007年被曝光。當時，英國的電臺司令樂隊在互聯網上發佈的專輯《彩虹中》就採用了這一定價安排。

A team of researchers led by Ayelet Gneezy at the University of California’s Rady School of Management has now published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that makes some suggestions about the psychological underpinnings of this generosity. They finger the ego—in particular, a desire to think of yourself as a good person. And they find that allowing people to name their own price may result in fewer sales than the old-fashioned approach of simply setting a single price for everybody。

由加州大學雷迪管理學院的艾萊特•格尼茨領銜的一組研究人員最近在美國《國家科學院院刊》上撰文試圖揭示這種慷慨行爲背後的心理學依據。他們將研究結果指向人的自尊心，尤其是把自我視爲一個好人的渴望。研究人員還發現，與傳統的對所有人採用統一標價的方法相比，允許人們隨意出價的方式可能導致銷量的下滑。

The researchers ran three experiments. The first involved more than 53,000 customers of a theme park, who were photographed while riding a rollercoaster. In one iteration of the experiment, customers were offered the chance to buy the photo for a price of their own choosing. In the second run, they were offered the same deal, except that half their suggested price would be donated to a children’s charity。

研究人員進行了三個試驗。第一個實驗將一主題公園中的53000遊客玩過山車的場景拍成照片。一組該試驗的遊客可以自定價格來購買這些照片。另一組的遊客同樣可以自定價格，區別在於他們出價的一半將會捐給兒童慈善事業。

The researchers noted two big effects. The average price suggested by those in the group benefiting the charity was over five times as high as that suggested by the first group. At the same time, only half as many people in the second group wanted to buy a photo. The researchers argue that the two results are linked: because the “right” price for the charity-and-photo combination was felt to be so much higher, a significant number of people preferred not to buy at all than to damage their self-image by offering a miserly price, and, by extension, a tight-fisted donation to a deserving cause。

研究人員注意到兩個重要的實驗結果。支援慈善一組的平均出價是第一組的5倍多。同時，第二組中僅有半數的顧客願意購買相片。研究人員認爲這兩個試驗結果息息相關：一旦將慈善和照片聯繫到一塊兒，人們心中的合理出價就被大大提升，以至於很多人害怕出價太低傷面子而不買相片。這就好比面對一項值得投資的事業，少捐不如不捐。

The second experiment confirmed the first. Passengers on a boat trip were photographed and then offered the chance to buy the photos. This time Dr Gneezy and his colleagues controlled their subjects’ expectations more directly. For one group, the price was set at $15, for another it was $5, and the third were allowed to name their own price. All three groups were told that the normal price was $15. As expected, demand for photos rose when the price dropped from $15 to $5. But it fell again when people could pick their price. Again the researchers suggest that an overly low price can feel unpleasantly parsimonious. In contrast, “when the company sets the price at $5, there is no ambiguity about fairness, self-image concerns disappear and people are happy to pay。”

第二個試驗證印證了第一個試驗。把人們坐船旅行的場景拍成相片，再向這些人出售。這次格尼茨博士和他的同事們更加直接地控制試驗主體的期望值。一組定價15美元，另一組則爲5美元，而第三組的人們則可以看着給。然後告訴這三組的人們，照片原價是15美元。不出所料，當照片的價格從15美元跌倒5美元的時候，需求隨之攀升。但當人們可以自己定價的時候購買量反而更少了。定價過低反而使人們更加小氣。相比之下，“若公司把價格定到5美元，交易很顯然十分公平，人們不再擔心自我形象，開始樂於購買。”

To determine whether it is your conscience that prods you to be generous, as opposed to pressure from your peers, the third experiment took place in a restaurant in which customers chose the price paid for a meal. One group was allowed to pay secretly; another paid in public. The people allowed to pay their bills anonymously chose to pay more, on average, than those who paid in public. Radiohead, for their part, seem to have anticipated Dr Gneezy’s conclusions. Their latest album, “The King of Limbs”， was again released online—but only for a fixed price, of $9.

爲了搞清楚人們的慷慨大方到底是良心所驅還是羣體壓力所使，研究人員在一家餐廳進行了第三次試驗。餐廳的顧客可以自選價格付賬。一組用餐者可以在暗地裏付賬；另一組則要在大庭廣衆之下埋單。平均下來，匿名付賬的人們比公開付賬的人們給的更多。電臺司令樂隊似乎已經預料到了格尼茨博士的實驗結論。他們的最新專輯——《橡樹王的律動》，重新在線發售，而這次把價定在了9美元。