This post is part of a series about The Paradox of Choice, a book about why more is less. Leave a comment below and I may randomly pick you to win one of three autographed copies. Read more of this series.
We have all been disappointed by a movie that we had high hopes of liking. You’ve probably also given a review of a movie that went something like, “it was pretty good, but I expected it to suck.”
That’s pretty much the only way to explain why I liked The Hot Chick, a Rob Schneider vehicle that I can’t believe I saw in the theater. This is a movie whose top keywords at IMDb are Underwear, Slacker, and Gay Kiss.
Yet, I couldn’t help but say good things about it. That’s because I set the “zero point,” my frame for comparison, as the lowliest of bad comedies. Like the pessimist’s dilemma, the zero point can be altered by a small change in phrasing:
A sign at a gas station that says “Discount for Paying Cash” sets the zero point at the credit card price. A sign that says “Surcharge for Using Credit” sets the zero point at the cash price. Thought the difference between cash and credit may be the same at both gas stations, people will be annoyed at having to pay a surcharge and delighted at getting a discount
Sounds like a great excuse to plan for generosity.
This reminds me of the whole debate term of “poisoning the well” but in reverse. If someone keeps telling me I have to see this movie because it’s “so great” my expectations, or in your example my “zero point”, keeps getting set higher and higher. Then, even if the movie is good I’ll likely not like it as much because it’s been hyped too much.