If you’re selling any product or service, you should be familiar with the concept of behavioral economics.

If you don’t, I‘ll come to your rescue:

Behavioral Economics, according to Investopedia and behavioraleconomics.com, is the study of psychology as it relates to the economic decision making processes of individuals and institutions.

Behavioral economics explores why people sometimes make irrational decisions, and why and how their behavior does not follow the predictions of economic models.

(Read more here: https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/introduction-to-be/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/behavioraleconomics.asp)

Now, it’s pretty clear why it’s an interesting subject to take into consideration if you’re selling a product or service of any kind.

And if you are familiar with behavioral economics, there’s a good chance you’ve heard of Dan Ariely before.

A while back, he lauched his IRRATIONAL GAME, a card game based on behavioral economics studies and people’s decision making process, where players have to go through a deck of cards — each of them describing a certain situation, falling into certain categories, and then providing 4 different possible outcomes. The players have to then try figure what is the actual outcome of that situation [and other rules that are not relevant to this article].

As a professional Italian translator who specialises in marketing material, I thought it would be a very interesting subject to get my network involved with–and it could be fun, too!

I would like to post a weekly challenge to you: HOW WELL CAN YOU PREDICT HUMAN NATURE?

I will pick a random card each day, and describe to you the situation, its category and the 4 possible outcomes. Then, I would like you to try to figure which is the correct answer. Finally, I will give you the correct answer and the final explanation.

As we can’t play the game with actual cards as we would do in the real world, we can’t really work with a win/lose game system.

So, what do you get in return for participating? Lots of exclusive insights on what your (potential) clients base their decisions on, consumer’s psychology, how your employees think, and even what your own mind goes through when making decisions! Interesting, isn’t it?

CHALLENGE #1–16.11.2016 — HOW WELL CAN YOU PREDICT HUMAN NATURE?

OK, here we go with the first challenge.

Category: Potential

Situation: Participants were presented with two pieces of art.
The label on one of the pieces indicated that it was produced by an artist that won a prestigious prize, and that it was produced a year before the artist won the award.
The label on the second piece indicated that it was produced by an artist who might win the prestigious prize the following year.

Question: How did the labels influence participants’ view of the artist?

Possible outcomes:
1. The artwork that had a potential for achievement was viewed more favorably relative to the artwork with the prize.

2. The artwork the was awarded the prize was viewed more favorably relative to the artwork with the potential for achievement.

3. The labels have no effects.

4. The artwork with a potential for achievement was viewed more favorably relative to the artwork with the prize, but only when the artwork was brand new (made in the last 3 months).

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED? WHY?

Don’t be shy, give it a shot and let us know what you think!
At the end of the week I’ll post a reply / update and shed the light on the mystery.

Thank you for reading this article.

PS. If you want to learn more about and purchase the Irrational Game, check this out: https://irrationalgame.com

____

UPDATE — ANSWER #1 18.11.16

And the answer is:

1. The artwork that had a potential for achievement was viewed more favorably relative to the artwork with the prize.

WHY?

When evaluating job candidates, NBA players, or artists, people have an irrational preference for potential.
Potential to reach a level of achievement is often seen as more positive than the achievement itself.
This preference for potential is particularly strong when the evidence for the actual level of performance is weak or unclear.