Britain’s Got Talent and Behavioural Economics

We are studying behavioural economics in school this week and Tom Aedy one of my AS students thinks he may have spotted some possible asymmetric dominance in the voting for the final of Britain’s Got Talent! Here is his letter to Dan Ariely author of Predictably Irrational.

I’m not sure if you are familiar with the talent contest show Britain’s Got Talent - it is very similar to America’s Got Talent, over in the States. The final was Saturday June 30th and this final was very interesting because it involved a very similar situation to that shown in your book - Predictably Irrational - when you described 3 choices, 2 of which were very similar, and 1 of which was different. In our show, viewers have to vote in by telephone on the night of the show for a winner to be decided, and there was some shock when the favourite (Susan Boyle - a singer) didn’t win, and lost out to one of two dance groups (Diversity were the winners, Flawless were the other dance group) - whilst the dance group were very good, most people thought that the singer would edge it on the night. Thank you for reading thus far - if you do indeed think that this is a case of relativism I would be delighted to know. Here is the case in more detail:

Option A - Singer - Susan Boyle

* Generally regarded (before the final) as the favourite contender for the win

Option B - Dance group - Diverstiy

* Probably the better of the two dance groups - more creativity and flair, and possibly more entertaining
* That is largely my view, although their victory in the competition would suggest that they were the better of the two dance groups

Option B’ - Dance group - Flawless

* Also a very talented dance group, but more straightforward dancing - not very many surprises from them
* We could view them as the ‘dud’ choice of the two (although this is somewhat harsh)

General points

* Frankly impossible to judge who were the best of all three - all of them were very talented, but it is impossible for most viewers to try and think whether Option B was better than Option A (comparing singing and dancing)
* However, on the night, it is fair to say that Option B was better than Option B’
* Thus whilst most found it impossible to establish who was better of A and B - it was clear that B was better than B’, and this made it easier to select an overall winner (which would be Option B)

In my mind this could be seen as an example of relativism - but you’re the expert, not me!

One further thing. The competition didn’t just establish a winner (Option B), it also established a second and third place. Second place was Option A, but third place wasn’t Option B’ it was a (talented but) unpredictable choice - a saxophonist. Is it possible that the large majority that were split between B and B’ went for B (who were better on the night) and that this actually paved the way for somebody else to come in at third?