When faced with the same discount amount, consumers appear to overweight the discount on the cheap item over that on the expensive item. This irrational behavior is widely mentioned and explained by various behavioral economics theories, such as the “framing effect” and “prospect theory value function” (Kahneman and Tversky, 1981, p.347), and “mental accounting ” and “transaction utility”. " (Thaler, 1999, p.186-189). In his diary "Do consumers put too much effort into saving on cheap items and too little into saving on expensive items? Experimental results and implications for corporate strategy", Prof. Ofer Azar re-discusses this behavior by imposing the theory of "relative thinking". Relative thinking presents the tendency of consumers to take into account the relative price difference compared to goods. Analyzing an experiment conducted among students at Northwestern University, he finds that for participants the value of their time increases as the prices of items increase. In other words, consumers are willing to make more effort to save when they purchase goods at a lower price. This result is “consistent with relative thinking” (Azar, 2011, p.1078) and rejects the hypothesis of other theories, because they focus only on “absolute price differences” (Azar, 2011, p.1078), rather that “relative price differences” (Azar, 2011, p.1078). Additionally, Prof. Azar criticizes five alternative explanations: prospect theory value function, purchase frequency, transaction utility, equity, and perceived wealth. In his opinion, the prospect theory makes a mistake in directly considering the cost of goods as a loss; purchase frequency has limitations, firstly the experiment presented is a one-time purchase and is irrelevant with the purchase frequency, secondly...... half of the paper......also accounting accounting . If we consider this strategy more deeply, the value function played by prospect theory is the basic corner of the explanation. Finally, people are not rationally coherent over time, they are not good at predicting their behavior. They may perform differently when facing the real situation, due to social pressure and time constraints. But in many behavioral economic studies, using assumed scenarios to construct the experiment is still the primary measure. Therefore, this is perhaps the third limitation in this literature, including in other articles. Although there are some flaws in this article, Prof. Azar offers a thorough analysis of his thesis and well organized in content and structure. So this is a great document. It can be considered a strong alternative explanation for consumers' different effort in saving on cheap items and expensive items.