Searching for information is costly. I'm planning on buying a new car after I graduate next month, and in anticipation of this major purchase, I'm searching for information to ultimately help me make the optimal purchasing decision. In what way is searching for information costly? It may be true that I can get tons of information on different car models for "free" on the Internet, but it is the overwhelming abundance of information itself that speaks to the costliness of searching. It takes time to (a) find information sources, (b) judge the sources' reputability, and (c) sift through loads of information. To the degree that I have valuable alternative uses for my time (believe me, I do more than just blogging and grading papers), searching is costly.
In dating/social situations, we search for information all the time. As we explore the possibility of making a social "transaction," (i.e., going out with a desired dating target), we first gather information about that person through any number of activities: discretely "checking them out," Facebook stalking them, interrogating mutual friends about the target, and, of course, simply talking to the person to gauge the depths of his/her intellectual and social aptitudes.
It turns out that searching for dating information is not costless. For one thing, not everyone has Facebook, so you can't always rely on using the Internet to do quick and easy research. Also, you and the target may not have any mutual friends, so it could be cumbersome to get "character references." Moreover, simply approaching the target and flirting/conversing with him/her to gauge potential is certainly costly in terms of time, effort, and guts.
As a "sassy," single female, I have a request that may pertain to some of the males out there: I know a really easy way for you to lower our search costs and also avoid awkward/unwanted flirtation "transactions" with us. If you are married: wear your ring. That's usually not a big deal; I think that most BYU wives are pretty good at enforcing that one. If you are engaged: You should ALSO wear a ring--on your left hand ring finger. Yes, it's disappointing to catch a glimpse of an attractive guy only to immediately discover, upon a quick "ring-check," that he is taken. However, that scenario is much better than flirting with a ring-less guy and then seeing him two weeks later with a gold band on his ring finger, finding out that he got married over the weekend and was, therefore, engaged at the time of said flirting incident. Have I ever been that girl? Why else would I write this post? In essence, knowing whether someone is engaged/married, through an easy inspection of whether that person is wearing a ring, is a valuable piece of information, since it minimizes embarassment costs and reduces the need to search for additional information on an individual's relationship status.
I have one friend who made her now-husband wear a ring while they were engaged, and he happily obliged. Those two are my heroes. Is it too much to ask men to wear engagement rings? I'm sure there are others out there besides me who have been an initiator (or victim. . . ) of unwanted flirtations resulting from ignorance on someone's relationship status. . . .
bahahahHAHAhaha.
ReplyDeleteGreat, novel idea that I've never heard proposed by jewelers. I'm sure they would LOVE thi$, but they most assuredly know that most guys would NEVER go for it. We'd have to revamp all of our cultural traditions..not likely to happen anytime soon. Who would pay for the ring? The girl? That probably wouldn't fly, but I'll give the Sassy She-conomist a gold star for the idea which certainly does have economic merit. Anything that saves time and embarrassment sounds promising to me!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm a huge fan of the blog.
ReplyDeleteIn IO this semester, we talked about three results from search theory:
1. In the presence of search costs, it is optimal to be less than 100% informed. This is fodder for a pep talk to someone afraid of commitment because they haven't "met enough people yet".
2. When consumers have costly search, firms can charge the monopoly price. Firms are the people with market power, who are selling differentiated products. So perhaps it's attractive people (broadly defined) that can expect a lot of their dates because search is so costly? That was a stretch, help me out.
3. You'll like this one, the Stahl model: the monopoly price result (and lots of search theory results) breaks down if there are some people ("shoppers") who have negative or zero search costs. They like shopping (dating). How can we apply the Stahl model?
Hey Dr. P! Thanks for the compliment and for your very insightful comments. Prof. Kearl always mentions #1 in his "Information and Search Costs" lecture, and I love the analogy. I'd never heard of the Stahl model until now, but I might be "that" kind of a shopper, since I do get utility out of frequent trips to the mall, although I'm not sure if I am also that kind of a dater. . . . .
ReplyDeleteIn any case, my guess is that individuals who have low search costs not only LIKE dating, but also don't have to put much effort into finding dates (maybe these are highly attractive people, or people in competitive dating markets like Provo, where it's relatively less cumbersome to find a date for Saturday night.) In any case, since these people search a lot, they know "what's out there," and they have options and also know if a would-be "monopolist" is overpricing. Since they have lots of dating options, their opportunity cost of settling down with one person is high, so they are not willing to pay a high "price" (invest a lot of emotional care) into settling down with a bf/gf in a relationship transaction.
Maybe this is why "hot jerks," (like John Tucker in "John Tucker Must Die") can get away with treating their significant others like dirt. Ultimately, though, I suppose a relationship transaction is only likely to occur if John Tucker can find a girl who is willing to accept a range of a level of care that covers John's bid. . . . . So, maybe we get what we pay for???
I think I may have lost my econ sense momentarily in searching for a chick flick parallel, but this sure is fun to puzzle about. . . .