Grocery Bags
One manifestation of Chicago's backwardness is the stunning lack of decent recycling facilities. The University barely recycles at all, and the city's recycling program is painfully limited and underused. So I accumulate a lot of plastic bags from the grocery store because I can't recycle them. In response, I try to reuse them.
Grocery stores often give discounts of 10 cents for people who bring their own shopping bags. Despite being an evil institution, the Hyde Park Co-Op is no exception to this rule. It's obvious that most people don't do this, however. People forget, or don't really care about getting a 30-cent discount each week.
Nevertheless, the average shopping bag is good for at least 3 uses, so we could potentially be using 1/3 the number of bags. This would clearly be economically and environmentally beneficial.
So my idea is this: why not charge people for their bags, instead of giving them a discount for not using them? When the price of the bag is implicit in the cost of groceries rather than explicit, people forget that they are actually paying for their bags when they buy groceries. Hence they don't care about it. But suppose you were to charge someone a quarter for each bag that he uses. The higher monetary value placed on the bag helps, but the individual is also consciously aware that he is buying the bag.
The grocery-bagging-boys might become the object of the stingy shopper's ire for using one too many bags, but it would probably rationalize consumer behavior a little.
Funny you should mention this.
At Ikea as you checkout they ask you how many bags you want to buy and charge you for them as you checkout
I recently shopped there and declined the bags because I could save a few cents.
Even in the backwaters of Utah Ikea exists and are changing the habits of Americans.
Not only do they have good design for very little money, they encourage responsible shopping -- and where else can you buy authentic swedish meatballs in Utah?
Do you really think the explicit/implicit comparison really makes a significant difference at these low of prices? Wouldn't it be better to just raise the price? Your $.25 price example does that.
I suppose there's a counterexample with income tax withholding, where people are more ready to give up the money if they never see it in their bank accounts than if it involves writing a check. In this case you don't want them to be willing to pay, so you make them write the check.
I think you're right on both counts. The income tax withholding is a good example of this possible psychological effect, in which people feel worse about giving up things that they already have, versus things that they would otherwise receive.
By the way, do you know where you're living next year? Rumors have been circulating about anxious first-years discovering their quarters for the upcoming year. Incidentally, Abraham is living in Vincent next year.
I wonder what the origin of this preference is? Can it truly be said to be completely irrational, or does it derive from a risk of not receiving what you are contractually entitled to? It might be related to the immediacy of the change in financial status. When you conserve bags against paying for them, you are impoverished by a greater or lesser degree immediately. The decision to reuse begins at home, upwards of an hour before you "get" the money.
I think there are also two different effects here: conservation and reuse. In the case where you are charged for the bags, both effects apply. If you use less bags, you clearly save money, and if you reuse them, you save money. In the "save $.10 for reusing" case, the discount is either flat, in which case no conservation incentive exists, or levied on a per-bag basis, in which a [i]counterincentive[/i] exists.
Maybe this is the source of the difference, rather than irrationality or lack of trust?