Chapter 7 7. Shortage
Whether it is radio, television, newspapers, or magazines, we often see a question that Chinese journalists like to ask foreigners visiting China: "What do you think of China's development?" You know, the CEOs of multinational companies, They have public relations consultants. Before they came to China, they knew that Chinese journalists love to ask this question, so they specially prepared the answer.Therefore, when many foreigners answered this question posed by different Chinese journalists, they almost always answered the same: "It's amazing, I can't believe it."
Why do Chinese journalists need affirmation and praise from foreigners so much?Because the Chinese nation has not had the opportunity to be proud and elated for many years, we are particularly eager to be recognized by others, so we are especially concerned about how people treat us and evaluate us, regardless of whether they are flattering or sincere. Listen to the truth.There is an old saying in China: If you are plain, you should not avoid greasy food.It is the best explanation of the shortage principle.
Mercer, Arizona, where I live, is a suburb of Phoenix. Perhaps the most famous feature of Mercer is its large Mormon population, second only to Salt Lake City, the city with the most Mormons in the world.There is also a huge Mormon church located in the beautiful city center.Although I have enjoyed the scenery near the church and the architectural art of the church from a distance, I have never been interested in going into the church to have a look inside.Until one day, I read an article in the newspaper saying that every Mormon church has a special area inside, except for Mormon believers, anyone else is forbidden to enter, even those who may convert to Mormonism people are no exception.However, there is an exception to this rule, that is, within a few days after a new church is completed, all people can visit the entire church, including of course the part that is forbidden to non-believers.
The article said the Mesa church had just undergone a major renovation.According to the standards of the church, the church after this kind of repair can be regarded as a new church.Therefore, non-Mormons will also be able to visit normally off-limits areas for the next few days.I still vividly remember the impact of that article on me: I immediately decided to pay a visit.But when I called a friend and asked if he would go with me, I started to realize something that changed my mind so quickly.
My friend declined my invitation and wondered why I wanted to visit this church so much.I have to admit that it never occurred to me to visit a church before.I also had no questions about Mormonism to answer, I had no general interest in church architecture, and I didn't expect to find anything more exotic and exciting than the other churches in the area.As we talked, it all became clear: for me, the special attraction of this church was that if I didn't hurry to see that normally off-limits part, I would never have the opportunity to do so.That is to say, something that didn't appeal to me before suddenly becomes alluring because I won't be able to have it anytime soon.
Since that encounter with the "fewer opportunities, more value" scarcity principle, I've paid attention to its full impact on my behavior.For example, I've noticed that I'm often interrupting an interesting face-to-face conversation to answer a phone call from whom I don't know where.In this case, the caller has a coercive quality for me that the person I'm talking to doesn't: if I don't answer the call, I might not know who's calling phone and will miss the message he brought me.I'm almost sure that the conversation on the phone will never be as exciting and important as the one we're having, but when the phone rings, I pick it up anyway.Because once this call is missed, there may be no chance of recovery.
The idea that something might be lost plays an important role in people's decision-making process.In fact, the fear of losing something is more motivating than the desire to gain something of equal value.For example, in order to get homeowners to adopt the correct insulation method, it is more effective to tell them how much money they will lose by using incorrect insulation method than to tell them how much money they can save.People in health research have come to similar results.Pamphlets that encourage young women to self-examine for breast cancer, if they state the importance of the practice, point out what they have to lose by not doing it (e.g. if you don’t take 5 minutes a month to self-examine, You might lose some health insurance), rather than what you gain by doing it (e.g., you might get some health insurance if you take 5 minutes a month to do a self-check), and the outcome is usually better.
Collectors are keenly aware of the role of the scarcity principle in determining the value of something, whether they're interested in baseball cards or antiques.Generally speaking, when something is very rare or starts to become rare, it becomes more valuable.The "precious error" phenomenon that exists in the collecting world particularly illustrates the importance of scarcity.Sometimes items with blemishes, such as dimly printed stamps or double-struck coins, are worth more than those without blemishes.Therefore, the Washington postage stamp with three eyes does not conform to the human body structure and has no aesthetic feeling, but it is something that many people dream of.This is an unexpected situation: When the imperfect becomes extremely rare, it can be transformed from worthless junk to hard-to-find treasure.
As the principle of scarcity plays such a large part in determining the value of affairs, it is most natural that obedient professionals use it for their own benefit.Perhaps their most direct application of the shortage principle is the "limited quantity" strategy, which is to tell customers that a certain product is in short supply and cannot be guaranteed to be always available.As I've been diving into agencies researching compliance tactics, I've seen for myself how many times they repeat this tactic: "There are no more than 5 convertibles with this engine in the state. Sold out Not anymore, because we don't make any more." "There are only two corner lots left in the whole development, and this is one of them. You won't want the other because it's east-west." "You might We should seriously consider whether to buy a few more boxes today, because the factory has a large backlog of orders, and we don’t know when we will buy more.”
The limited amount of information is sometimes true and other times it is downright deceptive.However, in either case, the intention is the same, that is, to convince customers that something is rare, thereby increasing its value in the minds of customers.I have to admit that I am overwhelmed with admiration for businessmen who have mastered such a simple strategy.What struck me most, however, was how well they took this tactic to the extreme when it came to selling an item that was so scarce it seemed like it would never be available again.One home appliance store I researched was a master at using this tactic.In that store, 30% to 50% of the products are always said to be on sale.If the salesperson sees a couple who seem to be interested in a certain product from a distance, by the way, there are many details that can show their interest, such as observing the product more carefully, randomly flipping through the product manual, and checking the product. They had a discussion, but they didn't want to find the salesperson to learn more about the situation.The salesperson will come up and say, "You seem to be interested in this model. It's a really good appliance, reliable, and cheap. Another couple just bought one 20 minutes ago. If I remember correctly If not, this may be our last one.”
NEW YORK — Gurban can't remember how his life savings disappeared.
He remembers the sweet voice of a salesman on the phone, and he remembers dreams of making a fortune trading oil and silver futures.But to this day, the 81-year-old retired utility service worker doesn't understand how the scammers duped him out of $18,000.
"I just wished my old age was better," said Gurban, a resident of Holder, Florida, "but when I found out, I couldn't sleep and I lost 30 pounds. I still don't believe I will do something like that.
Gurban was a victim of what the executive dubbed "Operation Boiler Room."The scheme is usually that the scam company hires dozens of smooth-talking telemarketers, squeezes them into a small room, and calls thousands of people every day to trick them into buying stocks.According to a report released by the U.S. Senate, such companies can defraud gullible customers of hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
"They used impressive Wall Street addresses, combined with lies and tricks, to get millions of people to put their money into all kinds of investment schemes that they bragged about," says a researcher who has tracked more than a dozen investors over the past four years. New York State Attorney General Abram Abram, who initiated such cases, said: "Under their sweet talk, victims sometimes take out their entire life savings."
Mihai, head of the Investor Safety and Protection Bureau and Assistant Attorney General of the New York Department of Justice, said that the deception method is usually divided into three steps.The first step is to make the "opening call", in which the salesman claims to be a representative of a company and gives an impressive company name and address. At this time, he just asks the potential customer to accept the promotional company's materials.The second call was a call, Mihai said.The salesman first talked about the huge profits that the investment could bring, and then told the customer that the time for investment was too late.The third call is to give the customer an opportunity to participate in the transaction and appear urgent.
"Their strategy is to shake the attractive fruit in front of the customer and then take it away." Mihai said, "The purpose is to let people not think too much and act quickly." On the third call, he told the customer breathlessly that he had just come out of the trading floor," Mihai said.
It was this strategy that convinced Gurban to take their word for it and invest his life savings in it.Gurban said that in 1970, a stranger called him repeatedly, urging him to wire 1,756 yuan to New York to buy silver futures.Later, the salesman called him several times, persuading him to wire transfer more than 6,000 yuan to buy oil futures.In the end, he wired another 9,740 yuan, but he never saw a profit.
"My heart was broken," Gurban recalled. "I wasn't greedy, I just wanted to get better." Gurban never recovered his losses.
The customer's disappointment is clearly written on the face.The item suddenly became alluring because of a missed opportunity.Usually one of the customers will ask if there might be unsold units of that model in the back of the store, in the warehouse, or elsewhere.The salesperson would say, "Oh, that might be true. Let me look it up for you. This is the model you want, and if it was available, you'd buy it for that price, right?" That's the trick. The finishing touch.According to the principle of shortage, customers are forced to make a commitment to buy when the item appears to be hard to come by.At this time of great temptation, many customers will agree to buy this item.So when the salesperson came back with the news that it was in stock (which it did most of the time), he always had a pen and a sales contract in hand.The availability information can actually lead some customers to perceive the product as nothing more than that.But at this point, most people are too embarrassed to break their word.Therefore, I had to maintain the promise I made in public at the critical moment and buy such a thing.
Related to the "limited quantity" strategy is the "deadline" strategy, which is a time limit on the opportunity for customers to obtain a certain product.As much as I wanted to visit a Mormon church, people often find themselves doing things they had little interest in because the opportunities to do them dwindled.The savvy businessmen capitalize on our propensity by setting a deadline and making it public.Just look at this type of advertisement in the newspaper pictured below, which can stimulate unprecedented interest in customers.This approach is especially common in film advertising.I recently noticed a succinct ad for a movie theater that used the shortage principle three times in one short ad: "Exclusive showings, limited reservations, showings ending soon!"
A slightly different "deadline" tactic is favored by salespeople who use the face-to-face, high-pressure approach because it sets deadlines the most radically: They now routinely tell customers that unless they buy now, they won't buy later. Pay a higher price, or even buy it at all.A salesperson will tell a potential member of a health club or a car buyer that they can only take advantage of the discount if they buy now.If you don't buy it now, you will never have this price again.A large children's photography company urges parents to buy as many pictures of their children as they can because "storage space is limited and unpurchased pictures are destroyed within 24 hours." A door-to-door magazine salesman might tell customers they only Stay in the area one day and leave the next day.Customers never had the chance to order their magazines again.One company I sneaked into that sold household vacuum cleaners told its salespeople to say something like this: "I have so many homes to visit that I can only visit each one once. The company policy is that even if you later decide to I can't run back and sell it to you." This is of course nonsense.The business of the company and its salespeople is to sell things, and customers can only wish for them to come back again.The reason why the company's sales manager said this to his subordinates is never to reduce their sales burden, but to "warn potential buyers not to spend too much time thinking about it, but to make a quick decision and buy now, otherwise It will no longer be available for purchase.”
The evidence is clear that the use of the scarcity principle as a weapon of influence by obedience specialists is frequent, widespread, systematic, and in a variety of ways.Whenever this weapon of influence is used, we can be sure that there is a powerful force in this principle to make people do something involuntarily.Its strength comes mainly from two aspects.First, like other weapons of influence, the scarcity principle exploits our vulnerability to shortcuts.As ever, this weakness has been instructive to us as well.We all know that things that are hard to get are usually better than things that are easy to get.Therefore, we often use the ease of obtaining something to help us judge its quality quickly and accurately.And this is one reason why the principle of scarcity is so powerful.If we follow the guidance of the shortage principle, we can usually make decisions quickly and accurately.
In addition, there is a second, more unique source of strength for the shortage principle.In a sense, we lose some of our freedom when an opportunity becomes less and less available.And the loss of the freedom we have gained is something we abhor.Psychologist Brem pointed out that people have a strong desire to maintain vested interests.With this idea at its core, he developed the theory of "psychological resistance," which explains how people respond to diminished personal dominance.According to this theory, when people's free choice is restricted or threatened, the desire to preserve that freedom makes us want that freedom (and the goods and services that go with it) more.Thus, when increasing shortages or other factors prevent us from obtaining what we want as freely as before, we rebel against this hindrance with greater effort.
Although the core of this theory seems simple, its branches have permeated many social phenomena.From the park frequented by young lovers, to the jungle haunted by armed revolutionaries, to the fruit stand in the commercial market, many impressive behaviors can be explained by the theory of "psychological resistance".Before we begin to analyze these behaviors, however, it is helpful to understand when humans first showed a willingness to rebel against restrictions on their freedom.
Child psychologists believe that people will have a tendency to resist psychologically when they are 2 years old. 2 years old is an age that makes every parent feel headache. People know this "terrible 2 years old".Most parents will admit that their children are particularly rebellious at this age.They just want to resist external pressure, especially from their parents.Ask him to do this, and he will do that; give him a toy, and he wants another; pick him up, and he wriggles for you to put him down; But he held you tightly and wanted you to hug him.
A study in Virginia documented the fearful behavior of some 2-year-old boys.In this experiment, the little boys followed their mother into a room with two equally fun toys.The two toys are always positioned this way: one in front of a clear plexiglass barrier and the other behind it.For some kids, the plexiglass barrier was only a foot high, so it wasn't a real barrier to the toys behind it because the kids could easily reach it.For other children, the plexiglass barrier was 2 feet high, making it difficult to reach the toys behind it unless they walked around it.What the researchers wanted to find out was how quickly the toddlers reached for the toy under these conditions.And the results were clear. When the barrier was so low that it didn't prevent the children from reaching the toy behind them, the children didn't show a preference for which toy.On average, it took as long to reach the front toy as it did to the rear.However, when the barrier was high enough to create a real barrier, many children went straight to the toy behind the barrier and reached it twice as fast as the toy in front.So, these toddlers exhibited the typical "scary 2-year-old" response to behavior that restricted their freedom: direct confrontation.
So, why does psychological resistance appear around the age of 2?This may be related to most children going through a psychological change at this age.At this time, children become fully aware of themselves as individuals.They no longer see themselves as mere extensions of their social environment, but as identifiable, unique beings with a sense of their own.The formation of this idea of autonomy will naturally give rise to the idea of freedom.An independent person has his own choices.And with this new awareness, children want to expand their range of options.So, when we see our 2-year-old children become rebellious and seem to be against us everywhere, we don't have to panic or feel discouraged, because it marks the beginning of a happier and richer life for them. , A new level of independence.Their little minds are thinking big, serious questions about will, power, and dominance, and they can't wait to find the answers.Their resistance to all restrictions and their struggle for every bit of freedom are actually the process of their seeking knowledge.By conscientiously testing the limits of their freedom and their parents' patience, they are discovering where in their world they are insurmountable and where they have the power to rule.And as a wise parent, all you can do is to provide them with a unified answer as much as possible.We will talk about this later.
While the "terrible 2" may be the age at which psychological resistance is most apparent, throughout our lives we display a strong tendency to resist behaviors that limit our freedom.The teenage years are another stage with a particularly strong sense of rebellion.Like around age 2, this period is characterized by children developing a sense of independence, that is, moving away from childhood, when parents control every aspect, to adulthood, with its powers and responsibilities.Naturally, teens tend to focus less on obligations and more on their rights as a young adult.Therefore, if the traditional parental authority is used to suppress them at this stage, they will either obey the law and oppose it, or resist it blatantly, which will only have the opposite effect.
Perhaps the best example of parental pressure on teens and reaping the consequences is the "Romeo and Juliet effect."Romeo and Juliet are tragic characters in Shakespeare's plays.Because of the old enmity between the families, their love was strongly opposed by their parents.In order to resist their parents' attempt to separate them, they both committed suicide and died in love, maintaining their own desire for freedom in a tragic way.
The strong feelings and decisive actions of the young couple have always puzzled the audience of the play.How could two such young people develop an extraordinary relationship so quickly?Romantics might attribute this to the exceptionally precious and perfect relationship between them, but sociologists attribute the phenomenon to parental interference and the resistance it engenders.In the eyes of sociologists, perhaps the love affair between Romeo and Juliet was not strong enough to overcome the obstacles set up by both families at the beginning, but it was the obstruction of the family that made their love affair reach a white-hot level.Had the families allowed their behavior to pass, their flaming love might have been nothing more than a fleeting impulse.
Since the story of Romeo and Juliet is fictitious, these questions are also hypothetical, and the answers to these questions are only speculations.But it is quite possible to ask and answer similar questions about contemporary Romeo and Juliet.For example, do young lovers who are subject to parental interference develop closer ties and germinate deeper feelings?That's exactly what a study of 140 young Colorado couples found.The researchers found that while parental interference also caused problems in their relationship, such as seeing each other in a harsher light and talking more about each other's negative behavior, it also made them love deeper and marry desire is stronger.During the study, whenever parental interference increased, their love became stronger; when parental interference decreased, their romantic feelings cooled down.
While the “Romeo and Juliet effect” among today’s young people may seem cute to the eye of the beholder, other manifestations of young people’s rebellion have turned out to be extremely unfortunate. Over the past 10 years, Virginia brand extended cigarettes have done a lot of advertisements, and the main message conveyed is that today's women have been working hard for a long time to get rid of the docile, virtuous, and educated image required by the old social norms.The ad implied that women should no longer be restricted by patriarchy, that the idea of being dependent on others was outdated, and that women were free to smoke.Was the ad successful in causing the target audience to challenge their constraints?One very disturbing statistic: During the decade the ad ran, only one demographic in the United States saw an increase in smoking rates: teenage girls.
From this point of view, for 2-year-olds and teenagers, psychological resistance can appear at all levels of their experience, and it is vigorous and powerful.For people of other age groups, although this resistance energy also exists, it seems to be calm on the surface, and it is only occasionally released like a fountain.And this energy is released in a variety of forms, dazzling.It has not only aroused the interest of scholars who study human behavior, but also has a strong interest in legislators and policy makers.
For example, a strange thing happened in Kennesaw, Georgia.The city has issued an ordinance requiring every adult resident to own a gun and ammunition, and violators will be punished with six months in jail and a $200 fine.Every feature of this statute has the potential to make it a prime target for psychological resistance.Not only does it restrict an important liberty that most American citizens have long believed they are entitled to, but the Kennesaw City Council did not extensively solicit public comment on the ordinance.As a result, few of the city's 5,400 adults would, as predicted by the "psychological resistance" theory, obey the ordinance.However, news reports confirmed that within three or four weeks of the ordinance's passing, the gun business in Kennesaw was surprisingly booming.
How, then, should we explain this apparent contradiction to the theory of "psychological resistance"?Take a closer look at who buys guns in Kennesaw, and it becomes clear.According to the interviewed owner of a gun shop in Kennesaw City, the buyers of guns are not residents of the city at all, but tourists from other places.Many of them traveled to Kennesaw to buy their first guns, lured by Kennesaw's gun laws.Green, the owner of what newspaper articles dubbed "Arms General Store," summed it up: "Business is booming, but almost all gun buyers are out-of-towners. There are only two or three locals who follow the law to buy guns." So After the decree was promulgated, buying guns became commonplace in Kennesaw City, but those who bought guns were not within the jurisdiction of the decree.Most of the inhabitants of the city did not obey the stipulations of the law.In fact, only those who are not restricted by the law and can make a free choice about whether to buy a gun will want to buy it.
And something similar happened a few hundred miles south of Kennesaw about 10 years ago.At the time, Dade County, Florida (including Miami) enacted an anti-phosphate ordinance prohibiting the use and possession of phosphate-containing cleaners out of environmental concerns.A study conducted to determine the social impact of the ordinance found that Miami residents generally had two responses to the ordinance.The first reaction seems to be to carry forward a tradition of smuggling that is unique to Florida, and many Miamians have started smuggling phosphate-based cleaners.Sometimes they, along with neighbors and friends, drive to neighboring counties, load up with a truck full of phosphate cleaners, bring them back and stock them up.The hoarding got so bad that it wasn't long before some families claimed they had enough phosphate cleaners to last them 20 years.
The second response is more common and subtle than the willful defiance of the edict by smugglers and hoarders.Because people want the impossible, a majority of Miami consumers believe phosphate cleaners are a better cleaning product than they were before the law was implemented.Compared to Tampa County residents not affected by the ordinance, Miami residents rated phosphate cleaners as milder, more effective in cold water, better whitening, renewing, and better at removing stains.After the ordinance passed, they even came to believe that phosphate cleaners were easier to pour from the bottle.
The second reaction is typical of those who have lost some kind of freedom.And it's crucial to our understanding of how psychological resistance and the scarcity principle work.When our freedom to get something is restricted, it becomes less available and we develop a stronger desire for it.But we don't realize it's the psychological resistance that makes us want it even more, all we know is that we want it.So we asked for some rationale for our desire, and we started giving it positive qualities to justify our desire.After all, it's perfectly normal to speculate that something is attractive because of its value.But, in the case of the Miami Anti-Phosphate Act and other examples of restrictions on the availability of goods, this speculation is simply wrong.After phosphate cleaners were banned, they didn't clean, bleach, or flow any better than they did before, and people think that's just because they want it more.
The mentality that people want to taste the forbidden fruit is not limited to things like detergents, it applies to information as well.In today's day and age, the ability to acquire, preserve, and apply information has become a determinant of wealth and power.Therefore, it is critical to understand how we typically respond to censorship and other practices that limit our access to information.Although scientists have collected a wealth of data on our various censored materials.However, there is surprisingly little data on how we respond to the fact that these materials are restricted.Fortunately, the few studies that do exist are completely consistent: we always want information more and tend to rate it more highly after it has been banned.
It seems only natural that we would want prohibited information more than we used to.But what we didn't expect is that we will give more trust and higher evaluation to these unobtained information.For example, when students at the University of North Carolina learned that a speech against co-ed living would be banned, they became even more averse to the idea of co-ed living.That is, they begin to agree with the speaker before they even hear the speech.So when someone's opinion is weak or unpopular, if they can subtly get their opinion suppressed, it is likely to get people to support his position.This situation is really disturbing.What is even more ironic is that for members of some radical political groups, for example, in order to get people to accept their views, the most effective strategy is not to publicly promote these views, but to deliberately allow these views to be officially blocked, and then Then make the news of the ban public.In light of this, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were not only staunch advocates of civil liberties, but they definitely behaved like a seasoned psychologist.Because they refused to restrict freedom of speech when they drafted the very lenient freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment, thus reducing the chances for new political ideas to gain support through unreasonable channels of psychological resistance.
The word "official censorship" usually makes us think of restrictions on political or sexual material, yet another commonly used form of official censorship slips under our noses, probably because it often happens After people have been exposed to these materials.It often happens in a court trial that a piece of evidence or a statement presented by a lawyer is ruled inadmissible by the judge and the jury must ignore it.In this case, the judge can be regarded as a person who implements the review system, although his review method is quite special.He didn't forbid the lawyers from presenting the material to the jury because it was too late, but he did prohibit the jury from using it.Will his ban work?It is the prerogative of the members of the jury to consider all the evidence presented to them.Would banning them from using a piece of evidence arouse their rebellious psychology and make them use the evidence to a greater extent?
These questions are part of a larger research project on juries that the University of Chicago Law School is trying to answer.One reason the study's findings are so informative is that those who took part in the study were not members of a jury, but instead joined an "experimental jury" made up of researchers.Experimental juries listened to audiotapes of previous trials, then carefully scrutinized and deliberated the case as if they were actually finalizing the case.One of these studies is most relevant to our interest in official censorship.The study involved 30 jurors hearing and ruling on a woman who was inadvertently feigned injury by a male defendant.The results of the study had two findings.The first finding was expected: When the driver said he had insurance, the jury awarded victims an average of $4,000 more in damages than when he had no insurance ($37,000 versus $33,000).This confirms what insurance companies have long suspected: juries would allow victims to pay more if the insurance company paid.But the second finding is intriguing.If the driver said he had insurance, but the judge ruled that this evidence should not be admitted (and ordered the jury not to admit it), the ruling backfired, with juries awarding victims an average of 4.6 ten thousand yuan.也就是说，当陪审团知道司机有保险时，他们把赔偿金提高了4000元；但当陪审团被正式要求忽略司机有保险这一事实时，他们却在更大程度上利用这一事实，把赔偿金提高了1.3万元。由此看来，甚至法庭采用的是正当的官方审查制度，也会给审查者带来意想不到的问题。我们对限制信息的反应就像在其他地方一样，我们会认为受限制的信息更有价值。
这本书揭示的6个原理对读者有着振聋发聩的作用，至少让我们有机会领略一下商业社会是如何利用我们自己的习惯来做我们的生意的。
认识到我们对被限制的信息会加倍珍惜这一事实以后，我们就可以把短缺原理运用到物质商品的领域，也就说消息、通讯、知识等方面去。从这个角度来看，我们就会意识到，要想增加一条信息的价值，并不一定要查禁它，只要让它变得稀少难得就可以了。按照短缺原理，如果我们觉得某条信息不可多得，这条信息对我们就会更有说服力。有两位心理学家，布罗克和弗朗金，创立了一种对说服力进行分析的“商品理论”，而“独家消息是最有说服力的信息”的观点就构成了他们理论的核心。
我所知道的对布罗克和弗朗金理论的最好证明来自我的一个学生做的一个小实验。我的这个学生也是一个成功的商人，他是一家牛肉进口公司的老板。他之所以回到学校，是想接受更先进的市场营销方面的培训。有一天，当我们在我的办公室里讨论了独家信息和短缺原理之后，他决定用他的销售人员做一个实验。他让销售人员给公司的客户，也就是超市和其他食品零售店的采购员打电话，要他们分别以三种方式向客户征求订货。对其中一组客户他们采用的是标准的销售方法：在订货前进行一番标准的商品介绍；对另一组客户，他们除了采用标准的销售方法外，还将未来几个月进口牛肉供应可能会短缺的消息告诉了他们；对第三组客户，他们也采用了标准的销售方法并提供了牛肉可能缺货的消息，但他们同时还告诉这些客户，这是一条独家消息，是公司从某些专门渠道得来的。因此最后一组客户不但认为牛肉供应有限，而且认为知道这个消息的人也有限，他们所面临的是一个双重的短缺状态。
实验的结果很快就显现出来了。公司的订单如雪片般飞来，库存供不应求，所以销售人员纷纷催促老板赶快多进一些货。比较三组客户的反应就会发现，与第一组客户相比，那些得知牛肉供应即将短缺的客户的订货量要多出一倍以上，而那些听说牛肉短缺是独家消息的客户的订货量则多出5倍。显然，牛肉短缺的消息加上这条消息本身难以得到这个事实，使得牛肉短缺这条消息特别有说服力。（出于职业道德的考虑，这些消息都是真实的。进口牛肉的确会出现短缺，而且这个消息也确实是通过一个独家渠道传到公司里来的。）
就像其他影响力的武器一样，短缺原理在某些时候比其他时候更能发挥效力。因此，搞清楚什么时候对我们最起作用是一个非常重要而且极其有用的问题。社会心理学家沃切尔所设计的一项实验能让我们了解很多这方面的信息。沃切尔和他的研究小组使用的基本程序很简单：他们会让那些参加消费者偏好调查的人品尝一些巧克力曲奇，然后让他们对曲奇的味道和质量做出评价。在调查者中，有一半人的罐子里有10块曲奇，而另一半人的罐子里只有2块曲奇。结果就像我们根据短取原理可以预料的那样，当人们吃的是仅有2块曲奇中的一块时，人们对它的评价更高。与那些一模一样、供应充足的曲奇相比，供应不足的曲奇更有吸引力、更昂贵，而且让人们在以后也更想吃到它。
这样的结果虽然为短缺原理提供了有利的证据，却并没有告诉我们什么新的东西。我们只是再一次看到，不太容易得到的东西更招人喜爱、也更有价值。这个关于曲奇的研究的真正价值在于它有两项额外的发现。下面我们就一项一项来仔细研究。
第一项值得注意的结果是通过将实验程序稍稍做了改动之后得到的。在这个调整后的实验中，一些参与实验的人并不是一直在曲奇短缺的情况下对它做出评价的。研究人员先给他们一个盛有10块曲奇的罐子，但在他们还没来得及品尝之前，这个罐子就被拿走了，取而代之的是一个装有2块曲奇的罐子。因此曲奇的供应就由充足变成了短缺。而另外一些参与实验的人从一开始就知道供应短缺，因为他们罐子里的曲奇只有2块。通过这个办法，研究人员试图回答一个与不同类型的短缺有关的问题：我们是觉得正在变得短缺的东西更有价值，还是一直就短缺的东西更有价值？在这个曲奇实验中，答案很清楚。当供应由充足变为短缺时，人们对曲奇产生了一种比供应一直短缺时更为肯定的正面反映。
人们对新近变得短缺有更强烈的感觉的观点也可以运用到曲奇以外的很多领域。例如社会学家确信，正是这种短缺引起了政治动荡和暴乱。可能这个论点最主要的支持者就是戴维斯。他说，当经济条件和社会条件经过一段时期的发展之后，跟着有发生了短暂而急剧的倒退时，我们最有可能看到革命和动乱现象。因此，在一个社会中，特别容易揭竿而起的，并不是那些一贯受压迫最深的人，因为对我们来说，自己所受的压迫可能已经成了自然秩序的一部分。相反，革命者更可能是那些至少过过好日子的人。当他们亲身经历过经济上和社会上的进步并希望更上一层楼，但突然得知这一切变得可望而不可及时，他们对这种进步的渴望会比以往任何时候都更强烈，因而经常会以武力来保卫这一切。
戴维斯从许多有关革命、造反和内战的历史事件中为他的新理论收集了非常有说服力的证据，这些事件包括法国、俄国和埃及的革命，以及诸如19世纪罗德岛的多尔叛乱、美国内战以及20世纪60年代的城市黑人暴乱等。在每一个例子中，都是先有一段繁荣稳定的时期，然后出现一连串的倒退，最终引发了暴乱。
20世纪60年代中期美国城市的种族冲突就是一个我们大多数人至今还记忆犹新的例子。那时候人们经常会问这样一个问题：“为什么这种事情会发生在现在？”在过去的300年中，美国黑人大部分时间处于被奴役的状态，而其他时候也是生活的贫困之中，但他们却选择了社会进步的20世纪60年代来发动暴乱，这似乎有点不可思议。事实上，正如戴维斯所指出的，第二次世界大战暴发后的20年给黑人带来了非常明显的政治上和经济上的利益。在20世纪40年代，黑人在居住、交通和受教育等方面的自由都受到法律的严格限制，而且即使所受的教育相当，黑人家庭的平均收入也只有白人家庭的一半多一点。15年后，情况有了很大的变化，联邦立法取消了在学校、公共场所、居民区、工作场所对黑人实行的正式和非正式隔离的法律。黑人的经济状况也普遍有了改善，黑人家庭的收入与同等教育水平的白人家庭的收入相比，这个数字已从56%上升到了80%。
但是，根据戴维斯对当时社会状况的分析，这种快速进步的势头受到了随后发生的一些事情的阻碍。首先，社会现实的变化远不如政治和法律的变化来得那么快。尽管20世纪四五十年代通过了许多有进步意义的立法，黑人仍然感到在居住、工作和学校等各方面受到歧视。因此，在华盛顿立法机构取得的胜利到了家乡却让黑人们觉得是一个失败。例如，在最高法院1954年决定取消所有公立学校的种族隔离之后的4年间，发生了530起旨在阻止学校种族融合的针对黑人的暴力事件（恐吓黑人儿童及其父母、爆炸、纵火等等）。这种暴力行为不免使人产生一种感觉，觉得黑人的权益又开始了新一轮的倒退。早在第二次世界大战之前，对黑人私刑处死的事件曾经达到过平均每年78起，而现在黑人又要为他们家庭的安全担心了。而且，新的暴力也不仅局限于学校以及与教育有关的领域，公民和平示威游行的权力也经常遭到敌对人群和警察的干涉。
而另外一种形式的倒退则表现在黑人的经济地位上。1962年，黑人家庭收入下滑，只占到同等教育水平的白人家庭收入的74%。按戴维斯的观点，74%这个数字在人们心目中并不代表从二战之前开始的长期繁荣，而是代表在20世纪50年代中期繁荣的基础上出现了短期的衰退。因此，在1963年发生了伯明翰骚乱，以后又断断续续地发生了很多暴力示威，最终导致了沃茨、纽华克和底特律的大动乱。
就像历史上的其他革命所遵循的规律一样，当长期的进步遇到某些阻碍时，美国黑人表现出了比进步开始前更强烈的反抗精神。这个规律给未来的领导者提供了一个有益的教训：给予人们一段暂时的自由比从来就不给他们自由更危险。当一个政府想要改善一个一贯受压迫阶层的政治经济状况时，可能会给予他们一些过去从未享受过的自由。但如果有人又想要从他们手中把这种自由夺走，便要付出特别沉重的代价。
当然，这个教训不仅适用于国家政治，也适用于家庭政治。那些随心所欲地给予孩子某些权力或者订立了某些规矩的父母们会无意中给予孩子某种自由，结果又在夺走这种自由时招致孩子们的反抗。比如说，那些有时会禁止小孩在两顿饭之间吃零食的父母会无形之中给小孩子一种吃零食的自由。到了这个时候，要想再禁止他们吃零食就困难多了，甚至会引起他们强烈的反应，因为他们不再是仅仅缺乏一种从未拥有过的权力，而是失去了已经得到的东西。正如政治自由和巧克力曲奇一样，当一样东西得而复失时，人们会比在一直缺乏这种东西的情况下更想要得到它。研究表明，不能一贯执行某种原理的父母特别容易培养出具有反叛精神的小孩，这也应该是意料之中的事情。
让我们再回到先前那个曲奇实验。我们已经从研究结果中知道，曲奇供应短缺时获得的评价比供应充足时的高，而新近变得短缺时获得的评价更高。现在，让我们把注意力集中到新近变得短缺的曲奇上。我们发现，其中的一些获得了最高的评价——这就是那些由于需求太旺而变得短缺的曲奇。
回顾前面的实验我们应该还记得，有些参与实验的人，他们面前装有10块曲奇的罐子被装有2块曲奇的罐子所取代，因而造成了一种新的短缺。但是研究人员对这种短缺现象给出了两种不同的解释。对某些实验对象，他们解释说因为这个实验对曲奇的需求量太大，他们不得不分一些曲奇给其他的评议者。另一组实验对象则被告知，曲奇数量减少只是因为研究人员给他们发错了罐子。结果研究人员发现，当曲奇是因为社会需求而变得短缺时，人们更喜欢自己品尝到的曲奇；而当曲奇的短缺仅仅是由于错误造成的时，人们对它的喜爱则要略逊一筹。事实上，由于社会需求而变得短缺的曲奇是这个研究中人们最想得到的曲奇。
这一发现也体现了在追求有限资源时竞争的重要性。某种东西变得短缺时不仅会让我们更想得到它，而且当我们必须通过竞争才有可能得到它时，我们想得到它的愿望就更强烈。广告商就经常试图利用我们这种倾向。他们的广告经常告诉我们，一种商品是如此受欢迎，我们必须“赶快去买”，不然就买不到了。与此同时，在电视画面上，我们看到商店还没开始营业，人们就将商店的门口围得水泄不通；我们看到很多手迅速伸向货架，货架上的东西一下子就被一抢而光。这种情景虽然也用到了社会认同原理，但却比社会认同具有更丰富的涵义。其传达信息是，不仅其他人想要得到这种商品，因而证明这种商品很好，而且他们也字按与我们直接竞争这种商品。
与人争夺稀缺资源的感觉具有很强的刺激性。一个冷漠的情人会因为一个竞争对手的出现而变得热情奔放，因此恋爱中的男女常用的一个策略就是有意或无意地透露自己有了一个新的仰慕者。推销员也学会了对犹豫不决的顾客玩弄同样的手法。例如，一个房地产经纪人在试图把房子卖给一个态度暧昧的潜在顾客时，有时会打电话告诉他另一个人已经来看过房子了，并且很感兴趣，计划第二天再来谈条件。如果这完全是虚构的，那这个新顾客一般都会被描述为一个富有的外来者。“一个外州的投资者，买房子是为了减税”和“一个刚搬来的医生和他的妻子”是他们最喜欢用的幌子。这种策略通常都会取得很好的效果。由于怕输给竞争对手，很多顾客马上就从犹豫变得积极起来。
希望拥有被争夺的东西的愿望，几乎是一种身体上的反应。在大规模的停业抛售或大降价中去抢购的顾客就说，他们几乎是不由自主地卷进去的。他们被疯狂的人群所感染，奋不顾身地挤入人群，抢购平时不屑一顾的商品。这种行为很有点像荒野中动物乱吃一通的“胡乱进食”现象。那些商业捕鱼人就很善于利用这种现象。他们先将大量鱼饵投入水中，引诱鱼群一窝蜂地拥上来。很快这片水域就变成了那些摆动着鱼鳍、张开大嘴争食的鱼儿的天下。这个时候，捕鱼人就把没有放饵的鱼钩抛入水中，把鱼一条一条地钓上来，既省钱又省力。因为这时候鱼已经疯狂到了什么都咬的程度，当然也包括金属鱼钩了。
捕鱼人和百货商店为引人上钩而制造出疯狂争抢的手法有异曲同工之妙。为了吸引鱼群，捕鱼人不会把切成小块的松散鱼饵撒入水中；而进行大甩卖的百货商店也同样会抛出一些事先大肆宣传过的号称是亏本出售的便宜货。不论是哪一种形式的鱼饵，一旦发生了作用，便会出现一个争抢鱼饵的鱼群或人群。在你争我夺的过程中，受现场气氛的影响，鱼群或顾客都变得焦躁不安、心急如焚，完全失去了自制力。他们忘记了自己到底需要什么，只是盲目地争夺任何被争夺的东西。到头来，无论是那些嘴里挂着空鱼钩、在干燥的船板上拍打着鱼鳍的金枪鱼，还是带着从百货商店里买来的大包小包的商品回到家中的购物者，可能都同样地感到困惑：我这到底是怎么回事？
但是，不要以为对有限资源的狂热竞争只会发生在金枪鱼和廉价商品的抢购者这些相对来说不很老练的个体身上。1973年，美国广播公司（ABC）黄金时段节目安排副总裁，后来成为派拉蒙电影公司和福克斯电视网的头，被《时代》杂志称为“神奇的大人物”的迪勒做出了一个非常不同凡响的购买决定：出资330万美元购买电影《波塞东历险记》的一次性电视播放权。这个数字之所以值得注意，是因为它大大超过了以往购买电影一次性电视播放权的最高价格——《巴顿将军》的200万美元。事实上，由于出价太高，美国广播公司认为在《波塞东历险记》上将损失100万。正如美国全国广播公司特别节目副总裁斯托克当时所说的那样：“他们不可能把钱赚回来，绝对不可能。”
那么，像迪勒这样如此精明而又经验丰富的商人为什么要做一笔预期要亏损100万美元的生意呢？答案可能就在这笔交易中另一个值得注意的特点上：这是第一次将电影版权以公开投标的方式卖给电视网。在此以前，三大商业电视网从来没有被迫以这种形式为稀缺资源竞争过。这个主意是该片善于哗众取宠的制片人艾伦和20世纪福克斯副总裁塞尔夫想出来的。最后能有这样的结果，一定让他们欣喜若狂。但是，我们怎么知道是拍卖的形式而不是电影本身的质量导致了这个让人瞠目结舌的价钱呢？
一些参加了拍卖的人的意见提供了有利的证据。首先是胜利者迪勒关于如何为他的电视网制定未来政策的讲话，这些话好像是从他的牙缝里挤出来的。他说，“美国广播公司已经决定以后不再进入拍卖市场。”而更发人深省的则是迪勒的对手，哥伦比亚广播公司电视部总裁伍德的讲话。在拍卖中他几乎失去理智，要与ABC和NBC一比高下：
开始我们是非常理智的。我们先给这部电影定了一个价钱，定价的根据是它能为我们赚多少钱，然后又在这个基础上留了一点余地。
但跟着投标开始了。ABC开始出价200万，我回敬了240万，ABC又提高到280万。到了这个时候我们都头脑发热起来。我就像一个失去理智的人一样，继续叫价。最后，我把价格出到了320万。那一刻，我对自己说：“天啦，如果我拿到这部电影，我该怎么办呢？”当ABC的出价最后超过了我的价钱时，我的第一感觉就是如释重负。
这是一次极有教育意义的经历。
根据记者麦肯齐的采访报道，当伍德说“这是一次极有教育意义的经历”这句话时，他是面带微笑的。我们可以肯定，当ABC的迪勒发誓“不再进入拍卖市场”时，他一定笑不出来。两人显然都从“伟大的波塞东拍卖”中汲取了教训，但其中的一个却付出了100万元的学费。幸运的是，这也给我们上了一堂极有价值却不是那么昂贵的一课。值得注意的是，笑到最后的是没有得到大家都想得到的那个目标的人。一般来说，当尘埃落定之后，我们会发现失败者表现得像获胜者，而获胜者却像失败者。此时，我们应该对那种引起喧嚣的条件（在这个例子中是对短缺资源的公开竞争）保持特别的警觉。正如电视公司的总裁们学到的，每当我们遇到资源短缺加竞争的魔鬼组合时，一定要特别小心谨慎。
正确地感觉到短缺造成的压力并不难，难的是如何针对这种征兆采取行动。之所以会存在这种困难，部分原因是我们对短缺的典型反应限制了我们的思维能力。当我们看到自己想要的东西变得很难得到时，我们难免会有些焦躁不安；特别是在有直接竞争的情况下，我们会热血沸腾、目光短浅、感情冲动。当我们本能的反应在不断地加强时，我们的认知能力和理性思维却在不断地倒退。在这种冲动的状态下，要想保持冷静并考虑采用哪种应对的方法是很难做到的。正如哥伦比亚广播公司的伍德在《波塞东历险记》遭遇之后所说的，“你完全被卷入了疯狂之中，理性早已被抛到九霄云外。”
这就是问题的症结所在：知道短缺压力产生的原因及其作用的方式，并不足以保护我们免遭它们的伤害。因为“知道”是一种认知过程，而认知过程会被短缺引起的强烈感情冲动所抑制。实际上，这可能正是短缺原理效果惊人的原因。当这个原理使用得当时，我们抵抗愚蠢行为的第一道防线——对形势做深入的分析，马上就会全线崩溃。
假如我们被眼前的局势搅得头晕脑胀，我们就无法利用有关短缺原理的知识来采取适当的方法措施。那么还有没有其他的方法呢？也许有一个办法。那就是按柔道的方式，把这种冲动当做是一种重要的提示，这样我们就能把敌人的力量转化成我们的优势。也就是说，我们不是依赖对形势面面俱到的认知分析，而是仔细倾听自己内心深处的本能冲动发出的信号。如果在一种让人顺从的环境中，我们能够捕捉到这种冲动的信号，我们就知道有人正在使用短缺策略，因而必须提高警惕，做好防范的准备。
但是，假设我们已经利用高涨的情绪冲动发出的信号，让自己冷静下来，那下一步又该怎么办呢？是否有什么信息能够帮助我们在短缺的情况下做出正确的决策呢？毕竟，仅仅认识到自己必须谨慎行动是不够的，因为它并没有告诉我们行动的方向，它仅为我们做出深思熟虑的决定提供了必要的条件。
幸运的是，总会有一丝蛛丝马迹能让我们在短缺的情形下做出谨慎的决策。让我们再回到关于巧克力曲奇的实验。在这个实验中，研究人员发现了一些有关短缺现象的看起来有些奇怪但似乎又千真万确的情况：虽然供应短缺的曲奇是人们最想得到的，但人们却并没有认为它们比供应充足的曲奇更美味。看来尽管供应短缺增强了人们的欲望（评议者说它们更想得到供应短缺的曲奇，并且愿意为它们出更高的加强），但却并没有使曲奇的味道变得更好。这种现象说明了一个很重要的事实：有时候，人们的满足感并不是来自于短缺商品的体验，而是来自于对它的占有。分清这两者之间的差别是很重要的。
每当我们面临某种东西短缺的压力时，一定要问自己：“我想从它身上得到什么？”如果我们是为了从拥有某种不可多得的东西上来获得社会上、经济上或心理上的优势，那么，短缺的压力就可以正确地指导我们为购买这件短缺物品而支付需要的钱。因为一样东西越难得到，对我们来说也就越贵重。但是，在很多时候，我们并非是为了拥有而拥有。我们想要一样东西是因为它的使用价值，我们想吃它、喝它、摸它、听它、驾驶它或以其他方式使用它。在这种情况下我们就应该牢记：短缺的东西不会仅仅因为供应有限，就会使它吃起来、感觉起来、听起来、驾驶起来或用起来更好。
这个道理虽说很简单，但当我们面对那些短缺的东西本身所拥有的致命的诱惑力时，常常会把这一点忘得干干净净。在这里我想举一个我家里的例子。我的弟弟理查德读书期间就是利用人们的这种倾向来赚取学费的。他的策略非常有效，所以他每个周末只需要工作几个小时就可以赚到足够的钱，而其余的时间都可以用到学习上。
理查德的工作就是卖车。他既不是在汽车展厅里卖，也不是在旧车行里卖，而是在家里卖。他常常会在周末买几辆私人通过报纸出售的二手车，然后不加任何装饰，只是用肥皂水把车洗干净，接着在下一个周末通过报纸以更高的价格把它们卖掉。要做到这点，他必须知道三件事。第一，他必须对汽车有足够的了解，才能买到以蓝皮书价格的底线出售、但又能合法地以更高的价格卖掉的车。第二，一旦买到车，他必须知道怎样写广告才能激发起那些有意买车的人的兴趣。第三，一旦来了一个买车人，他必须知道怎样利用短缺原理，使买车人更想得到这辆车。理查德知道怎样做好这三件事。但从我们的角度来看，我们只要分析他在第三点中所使用的技巧。
通常理查德会在星期天的报纸上为他在上一个周末买的车刊登广告。由于他很善于写广告，一般都会在星期天的上午接到一大串潜在买主打来的电话。对每一个有兴趣来看车的人他都会与他们约在同一个时间。因此，假如有6个人要来看车，他们可能都会在下午2点来。这种安排为有限的资源创造了一种竞争气氛，因而为后来顺利把车卖掉铺平了道路。
通常，第一个达到的人会按照标准的买车程序，仔细检查车子，指出任何缺陷或不足，问价钱能不能再商量。然而，当第二个买车人赶到时，第一个人的心理状态马上就发生了变化。由于对方的存在，使每一个买车人觉得买到车的可能性受到了限制。通常，第一个到的人会情不自禁地萌发出竞争意识，觉得自己有优先考虑的权力。“请你先稍等一下，是我先到这儿的。”即使他没有声明自己的优先权，理查德也会替他这么做。他会对第二个买车人说：“对不起，但这位先生比你先来。因此，能否请你在车道另一边等几分钟，让他先看？如果他决定不买或暂时决定不下来，我会让你看的。”
理查德说，第一个买车人焦虑不安的心情可以从他脸上看出来。几分钟前他还从容不迫地对车子的方方面面做仔细检查，但现在却突然感到机不可失、时间紧迫。假如他在几分钟之内不能决定是否能按理查德开出的价钱把车买下来，他可能就会把得到这辆车的机会永远让诶那个新来的窥视者。第二个买车人同样被竞争和有限资源的组合搞得很烦恼。他在一旁踱来踱去，很紧张地等着查看这堆突然间变得更有吸引力的金属。假如头一个人没有买车，甚至没有很快地做出决定，第二个人就会立刻冲上去。
假如两个买主在场还不足以立即促成一个对理查德有利的购买决定的话，一旦第三个预约者来到现场，理查德的圈套就会“唰”地一声牢牢收拢了。按照理查德的说法，排队等候的竞争者的压力对第一个买车人来说实在是太难以忍受了。他会尽快地解除他身上的压力，要么答应按理查德的开价买车，要么匆匆离去。在后一种情况下，第二个人一方面因为前一个人没有把车买走而松了一口气，另一方面又会感到那边那个新来的窥视者造成的新的竞争压力，因此，他通常都会把车买下来。
所有，那些为我弟弟的大学教育做出自己的一份贡献的买主们都没有认识到与他们买车有关的一个基本事实：促使他们买车的强烈欲望与车本身的价值毫不相干。他们之所以认识不到这一点有两个原因。首先，理查德制造出来的气氛让他们产生了一种情绪化的反应，使他们很难冷静地进行思考。第二，正是这种情绪化的反应，使他们从来没有停下来想一想，他们买车的首要目的是为了驾驶它，而不是拥有它。理查德造成的争夺稀缺资源的压力只是提高了他们想拥有这辆车的欲望，但从他们买车的真正目的来看，并没有改变车的价值。
假如我们发觉自己身处一个顺从的环境中，被短缺的压力所困扰时，我们最好是采用一个包括两个步骤的应对方法。一旦我们感觉到受短缺影响产生了情绪上的波动，我们就应该把它当做是一个让自己立即停止情绪波动的信号。恐慌和狂热是不会让我们做出明智的决定的。我们应该冷静下来，重新恢复理智。做到这一点以后，我们就可以进行第二步了，也就是问一问自己，我们为什么想要这样东西。假如答案是我们的目的主要是为了拥有它，那么我们就应该根据它的短缺程度来决定它的价格。但是，如果答案是我们之所以想要它，主要是为了它的功能（即我们要的是可以驾驶、吃、喝的东西），那么我们就应该牢牢记住，不管这样的东西是供应有限还是供应充足，它的功能是一样的。很简单，我们需要记住，供应不足的曲奇吃起来味道并不会更好。
去年圣诞节，我认识了一位27岁的男士。我当时是19岁。虽然他真的不是我喜欢的类型，但我还是和他交往起来，大概是因为与大龄男人约会是一种时髦吧。我真的对他没什么兴趣，直到我的家人开始对他的年龄表示异议。他们对这件事情越关注，我就觉得自己越爱他。我们的恋情只维持了5个月。但我想，如果我的父母没有说三道四的话，我们的关系能维持一个月就不错了。
虽然罗密欧与朱丽叶早已过世了，但“罗密欧与朱丽叶效应”却依然存在，而且经常在像弗吉尼亚布拉克斯堡那样的地方出现。
中国房价的发展趋势到底是升还是降？这是一个心理因素还是客观因素？为什么许多专家义正严词地声称房价一定会继续涨，而中央政府不断用各种方式来告知老百姓，政府控制房价的决心是不会动摇的。到底是什么在左右房价的发展趋势？
根据理性经济的原理来看，土地的短缺会导致长期发展后的更加短缺，因此，应该会逐渐涨价。但是，由于现代住宅建筑水平越来越高，可以通过向空间要土地的形式来解决土地总量有限的短缺主因。从另一个方面来看，事实上就目前北京的情况而言，北京国土面积是16