People treat precedents as intrinsic prices and reject market prices as unfair.
Evidence
Humans do not seem to equate fairness with market price. For example, people think it is unfair to raise the price of snow shovels when demand increases after a snow storm (Kahneman et al. 1986b). People were outraged when hotels increased prices after the 9/11 attacks (New York State Attorney General, 2001). The idea that prices – divisions of surplus – depend on supply and demand is notoriously difficult for people to accept. That’s why humans experience the diamond–water paradox, confusion about why luxuries can be priced higher than necessities (Smith 1776/1904). People represent goods as having intrinsic prices, and they expect current prices to match previous prices – precedents. This fits with Schelling’s (1960) focal point model of bargaining because precedents can increase the conspicuousness of division points, independent of supply and demand. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 370
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to behavioral-economics frames of price fairness from Kahneman’s ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ and Zajonc-style precedent effects, plus media coverage of post-disaster price gouging. — connects to: Colonized people reject the occupier’s values even when objectively worth choosing — Frantz Fanon, A Dying Colonialism, 213; Treason maintains equilibrium in segmentary societies as prices do in markets
- ADDENDUM: The disgust at pricing necessities over luxuries and the fumi-e reading of fairness (partner-choice signaling) is a natural companion to the sacrifice and immodesty essays on how moral sentiment deploys against visible wrongs.
Broader Connections
- Colonized people reject the occupier’s values even when objectively worth choosing
#corroborates(0.75) — Frantz Fanon, A Dying Colonialism, 213 - Treason maintains equilibrium in segmentary societies as prices do in markets
#qualifies(0.72)