Need an Interactive Map?

If you have a website and want to display statistics or improve navigation you should consider getting an interactive flash map. Options include a flash world map, a flash us map, and a flash canada map. These maps are fully customizable and easy to install. Free trials are available.

Recent Posts

Sponsored Links


Error: unable to get links from server. Please make sure that your site supports either file_get_contents() or the cURL library.



website uptime

« | Main | »

Negative Externalities: Double Dipping

By Chris | February 2, 2008

I have always been critical of double dipping. Seinfeld-inspired research out of Clemson University finds that double dipping shares a surprisingly large amount of bacteria:

On average, the students found that three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from the eater’s mouth to the remaining dip.

There are some benefits to double dipping, but they aren’t very large. I find that breaking the chip in two, or dipping alternative sides, provides a sufficient level of dip. Since “double dippers” don’t have to pay for any of the costs of increased bacteria, we have way too much double dipping. I’m doing my part to make it socially costly. Are you? (The same concept applies to sharing drinks, drinking out of the communal milk carton etc. etc.)

Topics: Economics | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “Negative Externalities: Double Dipping”

  1. laura Says:
    February 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Did you make this as an example in your practice lecture? It is a good one. But I do not agree that “Double dippers” don’t have to pay any of the cost caused by their behaviors, they indirectly do, sometimes. Suppose people around “double dippers” see what they do, they may do the same thing without feeling anything bad, and thus transfer their bacteria. Then the inital “double dippers” will be “victims” themselves.

  2. Chris Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    No, I didn’t use it in my practice lecture. I agree that there are costs to double dipping. Once I double dip, others won’t feel ashamed to do the same. Deterence eliminates double dipping in some situations, but not all. If the shared bacteria are dangerous enough, the first double dipper will have the dip bowl to himself. If I have the plague and everyone knows it, double dipping claims the bowl as mine. (This reminds me of licking my dessert as a kid so I wouldn’t have to share it with my brother). If enough people in a group will stop eating once double dipping begins, the benefits of less dip competition will outweigh the costs of bacteria retaliation.

  3. AlexM Says:
    August 16th, 2008 at 2:11 am

    Your blog is interesting!

    Keep up the good work!

Comments