Six Psychological Reasons Consumer Culture is Unsatisfying
Buying stuff can be disappointing. After swallowing the hype, checking out the options and trolling for bargains, finally you’ve got it; your brand new whatever-it-is.
Before long, though, the excitement fades. Your whatever-it-is isn’t so great any more. They’ve brought out a newer model with more features and anyway you’ve seen it cheaper elsewhere. It’s happened to all of us.
Psychological research tells us that this disappointment is particularly pronounced when people buy things like mp3 players or watches, compared with experiences like vacations or concert tickets.
In a new series of studies, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Carter and Gilovich (2010) explore six reasons that material purchases are less satisfying than experiential purchases, and what we can do about it.
1. Objects are easy to compare unfavourably
The reason is that experiential purchases are difficult to compare. The band you went to see on that wet Tuesday after work on the spur of the moment is likely to be literally incomparable. On the other hand mp3 players are much easier to compare: one has more memory while another looks prettier.
2. A ‘maximising’ strategy leaves us less satisfied
When people choose material purchases they tend to use a strategy psychologists call ‘maximising’. This means comparing all possible options. But because we live in a world of endless choices, maximising takes a long time and is hard work; so people often end up irritated and unsatisfied even when they chose the best possible option.
3. Material purchases more likely to be re-evaluated
We automatically re-evaluate material purchases after we’ve made them. In comparison decisions about experiential purchases, once made, are not revisited and so we have less opportunity for disappointment.
4. The new option effect
It’s always the way: right after you buy it they bring out a new, improved model, or introduce better options.
5. The reduced price effect and 6. A cheaper rival
Carter and Gilovich found that people were more troubled about the reduced price of laptops and watches than they were about cheaper holidays or meals out.
Think experiential
This experiment suggests that thinking of material purchases in experiential terms helps banish dissatisfaction. Try thinking of jeans in terms of where you wore them or how they feel, the mp3 player in terms of how the music changes your mood or outlook, even your laptop in terms of all the happy hours spent reading your favourite blog. (via PsyBlog)
Easy = True »
This is a great read for all marketers.
Invest in companies with names that are very easy to pronounce.
Psychology of Heroism: From Tackling the Terrorists and Thwarting Terror to… Sales? « Psychology Applied to Life »
December 29, 2009
Psychology Of Heroism: From Tackling The Terrorists And Thwarting Terror To… Sales?
Filed under: Popular Press, Social Psychology — Tags: consumer research, marketing, evil, heroes, Zimbardo, Stanford Prison Experiment, Clinical Psychology, interview, Newsweek, foot-in-the-door, sales, optimism, pessimism — psychoflife @ 7:35 pm Edit This
Besides the always fun alliteration, I find myself drawn to bits and pieces of actual psychological research sandwiched into popular press and journalism. That said, I saw this interviewwith Phil Zimbardo on Newsweek’s web site about the psychology of heroism and how it all relates to the courageous actions of Jasper Schuringa, the man who tackled the (alleged) terrorist who was attempting to set off a bomb and was literally on fire. How did this (more or less, seemingly) normal, ordinary guy end up jumping over other passengers and seats to tackle a man who was on fire – risking his own life and safety in the process and sustaining burns? What is it that turns some people into heroes who can ignore the obvious risks to themselves in order to protect others? Is it something that turns people into characters or are heroes born rather than made?
Phil Zimbardo is one of the most famous social psychologists there is, responsible for the Stanford Prison experiment, one of the most famous experiments of the last century. He’s also written a book about the psychology of evil called The Lucifer Effect. He’s appeared on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report”; he’s a past president of the American Psychological Association; and in general, considered to be a pretty well-known psychologist who taught everyone in the field a lot about “human nature,” ethics, and social norms.
Unfortunately, the excerpts from the interview seem to be taken in order to make some generalizations and “big points” about what heroism really means. Namely, the excerpts seems to be used to show us that anyone and everyone can be a hero – it’s more about having the opportunity to be a hero rather than an innate (psychological or personality) trait. And then, of course, the natural plug for Zimbardo’s book. But there’s more here and in Zimbardo’s work – there’s a larger basis for his research and these general conclusions that warrant examination or at least a brief glance!
Zimbardo briefly mentions some principles and ideas that are the seeds that have grown into to the larger branches of research, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll only mention one here – the foot-in-the-door phenomenon (FITD). FITD holds that by asking individuals for a small request (i.e., will you talk to this underprivileged child on the phone for a few minutes?), these individuals will then be more likely to agree to larger requests (i.e., will you take this child to the zoo?). One of the the theories behind this is that people want to appear consistent (and not hypocritical) and by agreeing to the phone call, they are demonstrating their own charity and desire to help and they don’t want to appear contradictory by turning down the zoo trip.
This phenomenon is sometimes embraced by marketing gurus and salespeople – once you’re already paying for a small upgrade, maybe you’ll want a larger one and so on. Ideally it’s also used by those in the philanthropy “business,” but nonetheless, it’s a way that psychological findings have boosted the effectiveness of salespeople and marketing campaigns alike.
There are a number of interesting connections between this scholarly research and real life – from sales to thwarting terrorist attacks – but this is also a line of research that demonstrates both the incredible highs and terrifying lows of humans. Because just as anyone can become a hero, Zimbardo’s prison experiment demonstrated that anyone could become an abusive leader, brutalizing fellow humans as such behavior becomes a new sort of social norm. But just as we can see the glass as half-full or half-empty, we can choose to focus on the fact that anyone can become one of the most admirable and respectable members of society. We can all be heroes. We can all do bad things. The bottom line in Zimbardo’s research seems to say that the largest difference between the (alleged) terrorist and the man who tackled him is situational rather than a fundamental evil or goodness. And while we may not have a lot of control over the situations we are born into and placed in, we can all work to help others become heroes, just as Zimbardo pilots studies (via the Heroic Imagination Project) to increase the likelihood that children will take heroic actions when faced with a situation and a choice to become one.
But then again, maybe I’m just influenced by the Christmas afterglow…
[Link to the original Newsweek article from 12.29.2009 by Mary Carmichael entitled “The Making of a Hero” here.]
Author William Poundstone dissects the marketing tricks built into Balthazar’s menu, as well as some of the general lingo behind menu design:
“A puzzle is high-profit but unpopular; a plowhorse is the opposite, popular yet unprofitable. Consultants try to turn puzzles into stars, nudge customers away from plowhorses, and convince everyone that the prices on the menu are more reasonable than they look.”
This is also very applicable to anyone designing a pricing page for their web app. As a side note, Balthazar is one of my favorite places to eat whenever I’m in NYC — awesome French bistro setting and great for brunch.
Menu Psychology: An Ethical Question? « Psychology Applied to Life »
Yesterday’s New York Times featured an interesting piece on the psychology of menu creation. It’s something that perhaps only large chains are giving serious thought to – sending their menus and executives off to “menu boot camp” and learning about the four types of diners – but perhaps none of them really should. Obviously the goal of a business is to make money. To do that requires satisfying customers and success does seem to be measured in profit margins. But, the use of psychology in creating menus here seems to focus on increasing two very bad behaviors.
First, the menus are revised to encourage individuals to eat more… the idea that we should actually “mindlessly eat” (as is suggested by the title of Brian Wansink’s book) is a very VERY scary one given that obesity is a major health crisis in America. Programs such as Weight Watchers actually ask you to focus on what you eat and how much you are consuming – because then you actually do consume less. The idea is that we won’t naturally keep eating after we’re full, to the point that we’ll feel sick. But, the presentation of so much appetizing food on a menu can cause us to order more than we should (as our eyes are bigger than our stomachs, as the popular phrase goes) and then, when the food arrives, we feel some sense of obligation to eat it all (yet another piece of wisdom I picked up from my years on Weight Watchers).
The feeling that we ordered it and it’s ours, and we have to pay for it so we should eat it is intricately tied to the next bad behavior encouraged by these restaurants. Concerned about the economy and reduced spending of Americans – a record number of whom have been unemployed this past year and many more who consciously feel the pinch – restaurant managers and executives are investigating ways to present prices to maximize customer spending. This includes presenting prices near the end of the menu and using “friendly” numbers without dollar signs (apparently the use of the period to indicate cents is left to your discretion as it seems to have little effect on customer spending).
Ultimately, the psychological research behind may be sound (I have NOT read too much beyond this – it seems to use the same research methods I am familiar with and use, but is published by and conducted by those in hospitality and tourism fields, so let’s assume here that it is methodologically sound, for the sake of argument), butshould it be used this way? It seems to be an ethical question with no easy answers. After all, though these restaurants may be subtly fooling customers into bad habits, the overspending of these customers leads to financial comfort and relief for the business owners themselves and who really gets to determine who should profit and who should face the brunt of the economic crisis?
[Link to the original New York Times article - “Using Menu Psychology to Entice Diners” by Sarah Kershaw, December 22, 2009, here.]
Best Way - Use of Psychology by a Commercial Artist | eHow.com »
(via spiciba)
The connection between psychology and commercial artists has been studied for over a century. In 1895, a popular advertising journal noted that “Probably when we are more enlightened, the advertisement writer, like the teacher, will study psychology. For, however diverse their occupations may at first sight appear, the advertisement writer and the teacher have one great object in common—-to influence the human mind.” Today, the commercial artist uses psychology in several ways.
- Commercial artists can use psychology to create image associations. According to Judith Williamson, author of “Decoding Images,” the associations people have with one image in a piece can be transferred to a second image present in the piece. Williamson discusses the example of an advertisement for a tire in which a car is pictured sitting on top of a jetty. Williamson notes that the jetty is tough and strong, and it withstands water and erosion. Consequently, we assume these qualities are true of the tire as well. In other words, we transfer the associations we have with one image to a second image.
- Commercial artists can use neuropsychology to make their pieces more effective. According to neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni, successful commercial advertising depends on whether the ad creates activity in the parts of the brain concerned with reward and empathy. Iacoboni conducted an experiment measuring the brain activity of individuals watching Super Bowl advertisements in order to determine what images activated various parts of the brain. If commercial artists can better understand what parts of the brain are activated based on certain colors and images, they may be able to design more effective pieces.
- Commercial artists can use Gestalt theory to make their pieces more effective and pleasing to the eye. Gestalt theory originated in Germany in the early 1920s. The theory focuses on visual perception and how the brain relates individual parts to a whole structure. There are three principles of Gestalt theory that commercial artists often use: closure, continuance and proximity. The closure principle states that the mind will supply the missing pieces in a composition. Continuation is the idea that the eye will continue to another object when it is compelled to move in a certain direction. A simple example of this would be an arrow pointing at an apple. Your eye would stare at the arrow and naturally move toward the apple. The third principle of proximity states that when separate objects are close together they are perceived as a group, whereas if far apart, they are perceived as separate objects.
Transferred Associations
Neuropsychology
Gestalt Theory
Dunbar's Number and Marketing | WebpageFX Blog »
I’ve been obsessed with Dunbar’s Number lately and its relationship to marketing.
Robin Dunbar is a genius professor of anthropology at Oxford. He studied the social behaviors of groups of primates for years and came to some pretty cool conclusions.
He discovered that in primates and humans, the maximum number of relationships an individual can maintain is directly proportional to the average size of that species’ neocortex.
In other words, there’s an finite limit to how many people we can be friends with. And that number is based on the size of our brain.
What’s that magic number?
150.
You can only maintain a healthy social relationship with a maximum of 150 people. But most of the time it’s less than 150.
If you don’t need to be friends with 150 people you probably won’t be. And the only time you’d need that many friends is when your survival depends on it.
Think desert nomads in Arabia. Or mountain gorillas foraging for food.
Your customer’s survival isn’t dependent on maintaining social relationships, so her circle is smaller. Which makes reaching her harder.
You need to be provide enough value as a PERSON that your customer won’t bump you off her radar.
So project a human vibe through your social media channels. Use a real person that talks about their life, current events, and mistakes. A memorable, remarkable, and relatable person.
Because the only way to be part of your customer’s 150 is to act human.
Sorry, no brands allowed.
From WebpageFX.
