[HPsquared]

If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.

It ties in with the story in Freakonomics about the daycare that started to charge a small "fine" to discourage parents picking up the child late, with the effect that these incidents happened more often. Because the cost went from implicit (shame, etc) to explicit (it's only $10).

[scott_w]

I'd be careful of inferring too much from things like this, particularly given how much criticism Freakonomics has received. One example from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11eTG4_iwqw&pp=ygUVZGVhdGggb...

> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.

To address your point explicitly, if someone believes the cost of a hug is higher than $1 ("higher than expected cost"), then offering one for $1 should trigger a similar suspicion in your head.

Think about it, if a stranger offered you a free Porsche, you'd rightly be suspicious. Would you be less suspicious if they offered that same car for $500?

[Nevermark]

I don’t think your example carries over to hugs.

Porsches are worth big money. The “costs” for hugs are more of a social calculation.

I expect that the act of taking a small social good that would not normally be available, or even allowed, but is being offered for free, feels subtly wrong.

“Why would this person give me X for free?” Makes us feel uncomfortable. We feel we are not seeing something, or perhaps freeloading. Which prompts a subconscious threat or status calculation, not a simple cost calculation.

But being able to pay for it suddenly fits a common pattern, even if the “product” (hug or conversation) is novel.

[scott_w]

You're still inferring too much from it. Remember, this was a viral video, so there's also the simple explanation that it might have been staged. If it weren't, there are some really obviously, mundane, reasons that have nothing to do with money. Examples: the people paying saw the people getting free hugs and not getting stabbed, so they were willing to trust the stranger.

[johnnyanmac]

>there's also the simple explanation that it might have been staged.

Well with that mentality this whole conversation is useless. You can't argue any perspective on a faulty premise.

[scott_w]

> Well with that mentality this whole conversation is useless.

Yes, it very well might be. Let’s look at the post I’m replying to:

>> If it's free, people are suspicious and judge the cost to be something implicit, generally with a higher expected cost than $1. On the other hand if you make the cost explicit, people are more comfortable.

That’s some deep psychological explanation for something when the simplest explanation could be “it was staged.” I hate to be cynical but it’s not exactly uncommon in show business!

[johnnyanmac]

I feel in both examples I need more context. Like maybe he $1 hug was from an extremely attractive person. Yes, they will pay for that hug over the free normal or below average hug.

Likewise, "free car" can come from a family or friend. So I might trust it more than a $500 beater that I'd immediately take to shop.

[taneq]

One time my daughter fell (OK she did something silly and jumped) and hit her head on a metal pole at a science center (she's fine, it was just a couple of stitches). My wife took her to the hospital, and (mislead by the confusing signage) accidentally parked in the ambulance parking area directly out front. Later we collected the car and saw a parking ticket. On seeing that the fine was $40, I've immediately joked "oh, OK so premium parking is $40, nice."

Although, given this is in an area where streetside parking can be $20-$30 for a couple of hours...

[wanderingstan]

Counter to Freakononics, my friend’s daycare in SF right now charges parents $2/minute for being late. So it seems to work for them. (Or it works because the cost is relatively high?)

[gizzlon]

Did they get fewer late pickups? Or do they just make more money?

[bell-cot]

Any reason to think their baseline is making money? The arithmetic of daycare - market-minimum hourly pay for the workers, vs. legal minimum per-child staffing levels, vs. tight parental budgets - is damned ruthless.

[johnnyanmac]

Yeah I'm not sure if $2/minute even covers the potential overtime of a caretaker needing to stay later.

[bell-cot]

Unless it's some "Mrs. Smith's In-home Childcare" deal, it ain't a carer staying late at $2/minute - it's randomly keeping a business open, at $120/hour. With (good bet) a mandated-minimum staff of 2+. At SF wages. Plus the extra staff churn that randomly having to stay late causes.

Parents wanting ever-so-forgiving cheap daycare need to move an idle grandma into town.

[p3rls]

Lol, counter to freaknomics, the truth(tm)

[Workaccount2]

I wish this model worked for the internet so we were stuck with the current shitty ad model. Charging money is the fastest way to tank engagement with your content.

[bravesoul2]

Free hugs? Yeah probably going to be churchy!

[sroussey]

Moms giving free hugs at gay pride really brings some tears as some kids get abandoned by their parents.

[guappa]

I've only met them at gay prides… not churchy at all.