[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.