接下来你来到古驰店，这里的一个手提包价值两万五千元。价格依旧令人咋舌，但比起你刚刚印在脑海中的那个十万元的价格标签，这实在是便宜。商店经常利用价格差来设定消费者的消费预期。

　　Another -prey we often fall to is that we are not really sure what things are worth. And so we use cues to tell us what we ought to pay for them.

　　另外一个让我们深受其害的陷阱是我们确实不知道商品值多少钱。所以我们利用一些暗示来告诉自己应该花多少钱。

　　US economist Dan Ariely has done an experiment to prove this. According to the Atlantic, Ariely pretended he was giving a poetry recital.

　　美国经济学家丹•阿雷利通过一项实验证明了这一点。据《大西洋月刊》报道称，阿雷利谎称自己将要举办诗歌朗诵会。

　　He told one group of students that the tickets cost money and another group that they would be paid to attend.

　　他告诉一组学生说门票是收费的，告诉另一组学生说参加活动是有报酬的。

　　Then he revealed to both groups that the recital was free. The first group was anxious to attend, believing they were getting something of value for free.

　　然后他再告诉两组人真相：朗诵会是免费的。第一组人便急于参加，深信他们免费获得了一些有价值的东西。

　　The second group mostly declined, believing they were being forced to volunteer for the same event without compensation.

　　而第二组人大部分都婉拒了，认为他们被迫为同一个事件志愿服务，却没有补偿。

　　What’s a poetry recital by an economist worth? The students had no idea. That’s the point. Do we really know what a shirt is worth? What about a cup of coffee? What’s the worth of a life insurance policy? Who knows? Most of us don’t.

　　一位经济学家的诗歌朗诵会价值几何呢?学生们并不清楚。这便是关键所在。我们真的知道一件衬衫的价值吗?那么一杯咖啡的价值呢?一张人寿保险单的价值是多少?谁知道?我们大多数人都会摇头。

　　As a result, our shopping brain uses only what is knowable: visual clues, triggered emotions, comparisons, and a sense of bargain versus rip-off. We are not stupid. We are just susceptible.

　　结果，我们的购物大脑只使用那些已知的事物：视觉线索、被激发的情绪、货比三家，以及便宜货VS宰人品的较量之感。我们不愚蠢，只是容易受到影响。