Talk:Scope neglect

Confusing

 * Subjects were told that either 2,000, or 20,000, or 200,000 migrating birds were affected annually, for which subjects reported they were willing to pay $80, $78 and $88 respectively.[2]

I don't get at all why this is considered surprising. All this says is that people consider $80/year an amount they could relatively easily live without, of course it doesn't go up to $800 if you increase the effect by 10 because then it would be a significant fraction of the person's income. Could this be explained better? What would be the "rational" result that makes the one actually seen noteworthy or an example of cognitive bias? --46.223.162.165 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that this example is very poor. It doesn't account for the marginal value of money. 2600:8804:8280:4160:8D00:4DD7:C977:1BC0 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)