Comments on: And then there were none… http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/ $271.00 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:12:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: EP http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/comment-page-1/#comment-1337 EP Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:27:11 +0000 http://significantobjects.com/?p=2597#comment-1337 I'm a relative newcomer to this blog, so forgive me if the subject has already been covered, but I'm curious as to whether anyone has used a more scientific method to determine whether a fabricated story adds a greater perceived dollar value to an object. I mean, I wholeheartedly agree that it would be completely unethical to post these fictitious stories without a disclaimer on eBay, but then again, if the bidders know up front that the stories aren't true, then doesn't that automatically skew the validity of the experiment? It seems that the people who bid on these items are looking to own a piece of fiction contest history or just make a gesture of appreciation toward a writer that they admire or would like to support financially. That kind of motivation, while admirable, is quite different from the motivation of a bidder who truly believes that the items have a legitimately interesting history. It would be really cool if a university psychologist has already done a controlled study to ascertain the dollar value of items with a fabricated history, debriefing the participants of the real nature of the study and refunding their money only *after* the bids have been made. Does anybody know if anyone has attempted this? (By the way, this is not a criticism of the Significant Objects project, its curators, or its contributors. I happen to enjoy this blog a lot. I'm just bringing up this issue because a controlled study might shed some interesting light on the subject of worth, both real and perceived. I’m a relative newcomer to this blog, so forgive me if the subject has already been covered, but I’m curious as to whether anyone has used a more scientific method to determine whether a fabricated story adds a greater perceived dollar value to an object. I mean, I wholeheartedly agree that it would be completely unethical to post these fictitious stories without a disclaimer on eBay, but then again, if the bidders know up front that the stories aren’t true, then doesn’t that automatically skew the validity of the experiment?

It seems that the people who bid on these items are looking to own a piece of fiction contest history or just make a gesture of appreciation toward a writer that they admire or would like to support financially. That kind of motivation, while admirable, is quite different from the motivation of a bidder who truly believes that the items have a legitimately interesting history.

It would be really cool if a university psychologist has already done a controlled study to ascertain the dollar value of items with a fabricated history, debriefing the participants of the real nature of the study and refunding their money only *after* the bids have been made. Does anybody know if anyone has attempted this?

(By the way, this is not a criticism of the Significant Objects project, its curators, or its contributors. I happen to enjoy this blog a lot. I’m just bringing up this issue because a controlled study might shed some interesting light on the subject of worth, both real and perceived.

]]> By: Best quote of the day « Jules Pieri http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/comment-page-1/#comment-1282 Best quote of the day « Jules Pieri Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:44:34 +0000 http://significantobjects.com/?p=2597#comment-1282 [...] is not alone.  The Significant Objects project by Joshua Glenn and Rob Walker just finished up.  It was a social science experiment in [...] [...] is not alone.  The Significant Objects project by Joshua Glenn and Rob Walker just finished up.  It was a social science experiment in [...]

]]> By: Jules Pieri http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/comment-page-1/#comment-1281 Jules Pieri Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:50:16 +0000 http://significantobjects.com/?p=2597#comment-1281 I am sad this is over, but look forward to the next incarnation. This was a brilliant success, even if the behind-the-scenes admin work was a bitch to manage. You guys must be very popular at your local USPS offices. I am sad this is over, but look forward to the next incarnation. This was a brilliant success, even if the behind-the-scenes admin work was a bitch to manage. You guys must be very popular at your local USPS offices.

]]> By: EmilyHaHa http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/comment-page-1/#comment-1280 EmilyHaHa Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:09:07 +0000 http://significantobjects.com/?p=2597#comment-1280 Oh heck yeah! I'd totally be down for a mug, too. Even a t-shirt, too. And it doesn't even have to come with a story... Oh heck yeah! I’d totally be down for a mug, too. Even a t-shirt, too. And it doesn’t even have to come with a story…

]]> By: Paula Newman http://significantobjects.com/2009/11/20/and-then-there-were-none/comment-page-1/#comment-1276 Paula Newman Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:27:38 +0000 http://significantobjects.com/?p=2597#comment-1276 How can I get a Significant Objects mug? How can I get a Significant Objects mug?

]]>