Celebrity Auction Prices Depend on Contact and Character
The magical thinking concept of contagion, the transfer of essence through objects, comes into play at celebrity auctions, where items that were in close physical contact with the celeb fetch bigger bucks than other goods they owned. Allie Wilkinson reports
By Allie Wilkinson
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Lady Gaga’s fake fingernails and Justin Timberlake’s partly eaten French toast have fetched big bucks at auction. Because these seemingly worthless items once belonged to a celebrity. Now a study finds that the price depends on the how much contact the celeb had with an item and whether they were heroes or villains. The research is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [George E. Newman and Paul Bloom, Physical contact influences how much people pay at celebrity auctions]
Data from auctions revealed that people spend more on items like jewelry rather than furniture, at least for well-liked folks such as JFK or Jackie O. Items from reviled celebs such as Bernie Madoff fetched lower bids.
The findings suggest that people’s desire for celebrity memorabilia stems from the belief in what’s called contagion: the idea that a person’s essence can be transferred through an object they touched.
A follow-up experiment further supports the contagion idea. Participants said they would pay substantially less for a celebrity darling’s sweater if it had been sterilized. But sterilization actually increased the amount subjects would pay for a sweater owned by a disliked celebrity. Gives a whole new meaning to money laundering.
—Allie Wilkinson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
