Hypothetical:
You leave work around or slightly before peak rush-hour. The narrow subway cars that remind you of cattle chutes because of how cramped they are plus the ambiguity of where they may lead makes the Metro a non-choice. That leaves you with the buses. Five buses provide direct service to your destination: 140, 408, 470, 471 and the 1005-1 with two types to choose from: regular (blue) or express (red; 1005-1). There are usually (99% of the time) no seats available at this time on the blue buses, but the express bus always has a seat open. Also, the express buses have a base fare of 1,850 KRW with the blue buses running a far cheaper 1,050 KRW. There is a digital billboard that provides the time until arrival for all buses. Yesterday you decided to take bus 140 because all other blue buses were 10+ minutes out, and the express bus was 9 minutes out. While you were 4 minutes out from reaching your destination, still standing in a tightly packed 140, with no stops before you disembarked, you saw the 1005-1 pass by full of open seats.
Standing at the bus stop tomorrow at around the same time you see that a blue bus again will arrive around 10 minutes earlier than the 1005-1 express bus. Which bus will you end up taking, the blue bus or the express bus? Why?
There are a number of factors here, and organizing them briefly will help us find a way to an answer. The facts are as follows: 1) you took the blue bus yesterday, 2) the blue bus is 800 KRW cheaper than the express bus, 3) the blue bus will most likely not have an open seat while the express bus will, 4) despite the 9~10 minute head start, the two buses will arrive at your destination at essentially the same time. While it was not said whether this was the first time for you to take a bus from this spot, however, given the intimate knowledge you have regarding the bus routes available from that particular departing point, it is safe to assume the choice described above was a repeated behavior. In memory formation, there is a concept known as re-consolidation. When confronted with a reminder of the past (in this instance a memory of a particular circumstance or situation), the original memory becomes "unstable" for a brief time. If nothing is done (differently) that memory will stabilize for a second time and will in turn become ingrained. Therefore, when posed with the same situation again, based on the previous memory of what action you took, it can be surmised that your behavior is also likewise "ingrained" and thus you will take the blue bus again.
Ok, that is obvious, but what is interesting to me is this: what were the original factors that influenced your decision to take the blue bus the very first time you were posed with this situation? Time is obviously the dominant factor, that is the belief that the blue bus, being 10 minutes ahead of the express bus, would negate the fewer stops and thus more direct and quicker route of the express bus. The other factor - latent I suspect - is the comparative cheapness of the blue bus. It gets interesting when the second confrontation of this situation occurs. Because then, the factor of time saving due to the earlier arrival of the blue bus becomes illusory - non-existent thus a non-factor - which then leaves cost savings as the de facto dominant factor that influences the final decision at precisely the time when the original memory wavers and is most malleable. So then, we are left with cost savings - and minimal savings at that - being perceived by you as a greater benefit than both guaranteed comfort and the knowledge that either choice will result in arriving at essentially the same time. Or, is Time still the dominant factor since you repeat the same choice, thus ingraining the original memory in its entirety (including original influencing factors) regardless of ex post facto knowledge of the original circumstances sorrounding the memory?
Interesting, huh? Ok, now that this intellectual masturbatory excercise has concluded, I'd say it's time to get back to work.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기