Wow thank you soooo much you explained this concept so well that I am not gonna forget this for sure , god I wish I had a teacher like you, your students are the luckiest.
Such a nice explanation. made so simple to understand. It helped in my CMT Exam. People are occupied with junk stuff on the internet. Channels like this are Gems.
Amazing content and nicely explained. I would like to add a few points on the shape of the curve and why it is cuvry-linear with different slops in positive and negative quadrants. Marginal utility is steeper in the negative realm than positive as humans tend to feel greater loss for the same amount against the gain.
Thank you for your brilliant explanation! I spent hours reading my notes and listened to lecturer online and still not clear. I understood it after listening for 5 minutes, great work Ashley!
Ashley .. I am so fortunate to have stumbled upon this .. You are such an incredibly gifted teacher .. wanted to use this concept for a consumer behaviour problem .. is there a way to connect for further questions .. Thanks
How does Prospect Theory differ from Expected Utility Theory? Also, for confirmation, if I am correct: 1) The function being relatively steep in the loss zone and relativelt horizontal in the gains zone explains loss aversion. 2) The 0,0 interval is the reference point. 3) The function being convex in the loss area and concave in the gains area explains risk aversion and risk seeking behaviour in different situations. Please correct me if I am wrong, thank you.
Awesome! Ashley, you should consider breaking down the 1000 most important econ concepts in videos, labs, data, etc. and shut the field down completely:) from the 10,000 average to well below avg. professors that have butchered the learning pedagogy in the field the last 40yrs.. you can be the Khan Academy of Econ.. Seriously.. you could teach a course in how to teach econ..
Thank you for your videos! Your examples help me a lot in understanding the materials. In this particular video, though, I haven't understood how the mug-pen example connects to the graph. According to my understanding, holding the assigned mug or pen makes the person more attached to it (thinking it is more valuable). Hence, they wouldn't trade it for something that value less (in their perspective). I do not see how this act of trading is like moving along the graph. If it is, then what the x-axis represents here?
With the mug-pen example, people have lower value for a mug that they don't own (willingness to pay someone else to buy a mug: $3) than they do for a mug they own (willingness to sell a mug that is theirs: $5 required to give it up). So, if you move "1 mug" to the right of the origin, the utility on the graph might be $3 (or 3 utils), while "1 mug" to the left of the origin will put you at -$5 (or -5 utils).
@@AshleyHodgsonAh, it's clear now. Thank you. We expect people to value the mug and the pen equally on average. This would likely happen if we ask them to choose between pen and mug without assigning since they are framing both as gains. With assigning, however, we change the reference point, making one a gain and the other a loss. Since people do not want to trade, we know that the graph must look like that: loss is steeper than gain.
At the moment, I just use Thinking Fast & Slow, Thaler's Misbehaving and a couple of others in that vein. The first few times I taught it, I used the Wilkinson and Klaes textbook (www.amazon.com/Introduction-Behavioral-Economics-Nick-Wilkinson/dp/113752412X), which I thought was very helpful to begin with as an overview in the field.
Preferring not to trade the pen for the mug because you have it, makes sense since you know how you feel about the pen, but you do not know quite how you feel about having the mug. It is not that these are not phenomena. It is the further declaration about what is rational that is questionable. The extra price you add to your bundle, is for covering the cost/risk of learning about other bundles/perhaps being wrong about its utility.
@@syremusic_ Thanks, let me get back to you. The general point here is that biases are part of our nature, and since they are, we should not be too quick to dismiss them as irrational. They may be rules of thumb that serves a greater rationality of survival. Being willing to trade something you like and know about, for something you have less information about may be a rational strategy from this perspective even if it looks arbitrary or irrational in an instance such as the one described.
