When allocating scarce goods and services, firms often either prioritize those willing to spend the most resources (e.g., money, in the case of markets; time, in the case of lines), or they simply ignore such differences and allocate randomly (e.g., through lotteries). When do these resource-based allocation rules seem most appropriate, and why? Here, we propose people are more likely to endorse markets and lines when these systems increase the likelihood that scarce goods and services go to those who have the strongest preferences—that is, when they help sort preferences. And this is most feasible when preferences are dissimilar (i.e., some consumers want something much more than others). Consequently, people are naturally attuned to preference variance: When preferences for something are similar, markets and lines seem less appropriate, because it is unlikely that the highest bidders or those who have waited the longest actually have the strongest preferences. However, when preferences are dissimilar, markets and lines seem more appropriate, because they can more easily sort preferences. Consumers thus react negatively when firms use resource-based allocation rules in situations where preferences cannot be easily sorted (e.g., when preferences are similar).

在分配稀缺的商品和服务时，公司通常会优先考虑那些愿意花费最多资源的公司（例如，对于市场来说，是金钱；对于线路，是时间），或者他们只是忽略了这种差异并随机分配（例如，通过彩票）。这些基于资源的分配规则何时看起来最合适，为什么？在这里，我们建议，当这些系统增加了稀缺商品和服务流向偏好最强的人的可能性时，即当他们帮助对偏好进行排序时，人们更有可能认可市场和路线。当偏好不同时（例如，某些消费者想要的东西比其他人要多得多），这是最可行的。因此，人们自然会习惯于偏好差异：当某事物的偏好相似时，市场和界限似乎不太合适，因为出价最高的人或等待时间最长的人不太可能真正拥有最强的偏好。但是，当偏好不同时，市场和路线似乎更合适，因为它们可以更轻松地对偏好进行排序。因此，当企业在偏好不容易排序的情况下（例如，偏好相似时）使用基于资源的分配规则时，消费者会做出负面反应。