编者按：经济人(希腊语：homooeconomicus)，即假定人思考和行为都是目标理性的，唯一地试图获得的经济好处就是物质性补偿的最大化。常用作经济学和某些心理学分析的基本假设。西方古典经济学中的“经济人”假设，认为人具有完全的理性，可以做出让自己利益最大化的选择。1978年诺贝尔经济学奖得主西蒙修正了这一假设，提出了“有限理性”概念，认为人是介于完全理性与非理性之间的“有限理性”状态。
What happens when people can pick their own price for a product?
买主若能随意定价，将会怎样？
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。
早期的经济学研究向学生们引介了“经济人”这一概念，讽刺人们处处鹯视狼顾，贪图个人利益的最大化。然而，人们在现实世界中的行为可比这复杂得多了。比方说，一种“随你付”的定价策略允许顾客为商品随意出价，甚至可以不掏钱。虽说明摆着，这种定价策略可以让人们白拿东西，很多人还是会付钱。这种模式在2007年被曝光。当时，英国的电台司令乐队在互联网上发布的专辑《彩虹中》就采用了这一定价安排。
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。
由加州大学雷迪管理学院的艾莱特•格尼茨领衔的一组研究人员最近在美国《国家科学院院刊》上撰文试图揭示这种慷慨行为背后的心理学依据。他们将研究结果指向人的自尊心，尤其是把自我视为一个好人的渴望。研究人员还发现，与传统的对所有人采用统一标价的方法相比，允许人们随意出价的方式可能导致销量的下滑。
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。
研究人员进行了三个试验。第一个实验将一主题公园中的53000游客玩过山车的场景拍成照片。一组该试验的游客可以自定价格来购买这些照片。另一组的游客同样可以自定价格，区别在于他们出价的一半将会捐给儿童慈善事业。
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。
研究人员注意到两个重要的实验结果。支援慈善一组的平均出价是第一组的5倍多。同时，第二组中仅有半数的顾客愿意购买相片。研究人员认为这两个试验结果息息相关：一旦将慈善和照片联系到一块儿，人们心中的合理出价就被大大提升，以至于很多人害怕出价太低伤面子而不买相片。这就好比面对一项值得投资的事业，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。”
第二个试验证印证了第一个试验。把人们坐船旅行的场景拍成相片，再向这些人出售。这次格尼茨博士和他的同事们更加直接地控制试验主体的期望值。一组定价15美元，另一组则为5美元，而第三组的人们则可以看着给。然后告诉这三组的人们，照片原价是15美元。不出所料，当照片的价格从15美元跌倒5美元的时候，需求随之攀升。但当人们可以自己定价的时候购买量反而更少了。定价过低反而使人们更加小气。相比之下，“若公司把价格定到5美元，交易很显然十分公平，人们不再担心自我形象，开始乐于购买。”
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.
为了搞清楚人们的慷慨大方到底是良心所驱还是群体压力所使，研究人员在一家餐厅进行了第三次试验。餐厅的顾客可以自选价格付账。一组用餐者可以在暗地里付账；另一组则要在大庭广众之下埋单。平均下来，匿名付账的人们比公开付账的人们给的更多。电台司令乐队似乎已经预料到了格尼茨博士的实验结论。他们的最新专辑——《橡树王的律动》，重新在线发售，而这次把价定在了9美元。