Chilling together: Art of Fridge Sharing

 Introduction

In a shared accommodation, the refrigerator is one of the most frequently used appliances, and it is in a place where nourishment and socialising are usually intertwined with the roommates living together. However, according to User (2020), when it comes to the use of the fridge there are sometimes battles which can trigger disputes and disagreements between roommates (particularly when it comes to the distribution of space within it). To approach this issue, economic concepts such as allocation of resources, as well as alternative psychological factors including anchoring effects need to be taken into consideration. In this blog, we are going to discuss and offer some possible solutions on how to share a refrigerator fairly with roommates, providing a fresh perspective on this everyday challenge.

A six-layer fridge in a UoM dormitory

Common good

A fridge is a typical common-pool resource. In the accommodation, students don’t pay to occupy space in the fridge, meaning the fridge is non-excludable (no student can be excluded from using it). The total space in a fridge is limited, and the more space one student occupies, the less space available for everyone else. The fridge is therefore rivalrous and we could thus solve for the economically optimal option for students to share the fridge (Jaede, 2017).

Consider the output of occupying the space in the fridge is the satisfaction of students. Imagine one student has a normal requirement for space in the fridge to store food. When all necessary food that can enable the student to live in the most comfortable manner is stored (which infers the maximum satisfaction level), the space required is 2 layers of the fridge for instance. Referring to the graph below, when no space is

available to the student, his satisfaction level would be 0 (or even negative). When half of a layer (0.5 Layer) is assigned to the student, his satisfaction level would increase from 0 to S1. Similarly, when 1 layer, 1.5 layers and 2 layers are assigned to the student subsequently, we could expect to see the satisfaction level increase correspondingly. The student’s satisfaction is maximised when he is given 2 layers (even if there are additional spaces available) and buying more food is bound to be wasted which would lead to a degradation of the satisfaction level.

Ideally, a possible solution where the fridge is assigned to each of the students according to each of their maximum satisfaction levels could be obtained. In this case, a situation where everyone is happy could be achieved.

Behavioural Economics (Fairness)

In reality, not everyone’s maximum satisfaction level can be achieved in a shared fridge due to limited space and factors related to behavioural economics. Social norms, for example, could influence how much refrigerator space is allocated, how long goods can be kept, and whether goods (such as milk) are shared or not. Also, some students might value the collective welfare of their roommates over their individual satisfaction. This altruistic behaviour can influence their actions, like voluntarily cleaning it or sharing their food without expecting anything in return.

In addition, the original allocation of space in the fridge could bring about anchoring effects (Hoffman, 2024) which describe the phenomenon that people tend to make judgements based on the initial information provided (the “anchor”). In this case, it could be accepted as the standard fairness baseline when the space is originally assigned evenly. It may be argued that any change from this original distribution is unfair as the change could be against someone's benefit (Hoffman, 2024). Thus, one

possible solution to solve the conflict might be negotiation. Assume the requirement for the space of the fridge changes. For instance, someone’s dietary habits change, and they may need more space to store groceries. The refrigerator space may be redistributed since there is an increase in demand for storage room. Through effective negotiation, the revised assignment is probably going to be approved as long as it falls within the range of what is thought to be a reasonable modification.

Apart from that, someone may overestimate their self-control ability (Varian and W. W. Norton & Company, 2020), leading to more space required in the fridge than initially expected. For example, they are likely to purchase too much due to the discount when going grocery shopping. In this case, supervision and punishment for impulsive behaviour might be a helpful resolution.

Alternative Philosophical Perspectives

According to an article in the Journal of Research for Consumers, a communal refrigerator can be classified as a secondary territory which is one where students have some level of ownership over the space but to a diminished degree (Griffiths, 2015, p.8). The authors wrote that “regular users of secondary territories tend to exert some restriction” on the “frequency with which space is used and shared”, so naturally the students who use the fridge the most obtain some informal authority over how much space they can take up. This outcome favours a form of Laissez-faire economics (promoting free-market economics with minimal regulation), allowing the space to be naturally allocated without formal discussion. They also wrote that “courtesy and civility are the cornerstones of sharing public space” (Griffiths, 2015, p.13) and that people who don’t share are often seen as rude by others, meaning the pressure of social norms is enough to ensure that space is shared.

In conclusion, through applying microeconomic concepts, this blog presents some insights and suggestions on how to share a fridge in a relatively fair manner. Realising the refrigerator as a common good, assigning the space correspondent to each students’ maximum satisfaction level could be one ideal solution. However, situations in reality might be more complex. People are not always rational and may break the common agreement. Fridge conflict led by psychological factors related to behavioural economics is often dealt with negotiation, as well as supervision and punishment. In addition, under the philosophical perspectives, a form of Laissez-faire economics where natural allocation of the fridge space could be expected would emerge.

References:

User, S. (2020) How to share a fridge with roommates, Liberty Properties. Available at:

https://libertyproperties.info/more/blog/54-how-to-share-a-fridge-with-roommates (Accessed: 04 April 2024).

Griffiths, M., & Gilly, M. (2015). Sharing Space: Extending Belk's (2010)'Sharing'. Griffiths, MA, & Gilly, MC (2012). Sharing Space: Extending Belk’s (2010)“Sharing”. Journal of Research for Consumers, 22, 1-24.

Hoffman, B. (2024). The Anchoring Effect: What It Is And How To Overcome It. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycehoffman/2024/02/24/anchoring-effect-what-it-is-and-how-to-overcome-it/ (Accessed 7 Apr. 2024) Jaede, M. (2017). The Concept of the Common Good (PSRP Working Paper 8). Global Justice Academy, University of Edinburgh.

Varian, H.R. and W. W. Norton & Company (2020). Intermediate microeconomics : with calculus. New York ; London: W. W. Norton & Company, Copyright.