How Concepts Affect Consumption
Our prehistoric ancestors spent much of their waking hours foraging for and consuming food, an instinct that obviously paid off. Today this instinct is no less powerful, but for billions of us it’s satisfied in the minutes it takes to swing by the store and pop a meal in the microwave. With our physical needs sated and time on our hands, increasingly we’re finding psychological outlets for this drive, by seeking out and consuming concepts.
Conceptual consumption strongly influences physical consumption. Keeping up with the Joneses is an obvious example. The SUV in the driveway is only partly about the need for transport; the concept consumed is status. Dozens of studies tease out the many ways in which concepts influence people’s consumption, independent of the physical thing being consumed. Here are just three of the classes of conceptual consumption that we and others have identified.
Consuming expectations. People’s expectation about the value of what they’re consuming profoundly affects their experience. We know that people have favorite beverage brands, for instance, but in blind taste tests they frequently can’t tell one from another: The value that marketers attach to the brand, rather than the drink’s flavor, is often what truly adds to the taste experience. Recent brain imaging studies show that when people believe they’re drinking expensive wine, their reward circuitry is more active than when they think they’re drinking cheap wine – even when the wines are identical. Similarly, when people believe they’re taking cheap painkillers, they experience less relief than when they take the same but higher-priced pills.
Consuming goals. Pursuing a goal can be a powerful trigger for consumption. At a convenience store where the average purchase was $4, researchers gave some customers coupons that offered $1 off any purchase of $6, and others coupons that offered $1 off any purchase of at least $2. Customers who received the coupon that required a $6 purchase increased their spending in an effort to receive their dollar off; more interestingly, those customers who received the coupon that required only a $2 purchase to receive the dollar off actually decreased their spending from their typical $4, though of course they would have received their dollar off had they spent $4. Consuming the specific goal implied by the coupon – receiving a savings on a purchase of a designated amount — trumped people’s initial inclinations. Customers who received the $2 coupon left the store with fewer items than they had intended to buy.
Consuming memories. One study of how memories influence consumption explored the phenomenon whereby people who have truly enjoyed an experience, such as a special evening out, sometimes prefer not to repeat it. We might expect that they would want to experience the physical consumption of such an evening again; but by forgoing repeat visits, they are preserving their ability to consume the pure memory – the concept – of that evening forever, without the risk of polluting it with a less-special evening.
While concepts can influence people to consume more physical stuff, they can also encourage them to consume less. Offering people a chance to trade undesirable physical consumption for conceptual consumption is one way to help them make wiser choices. In Sacramento, for example, if people use less energy than their neighbors, they get a smiley face on their utility bill (or two if they’re really good) – a tactic that has reduced energy use in the district and is now being employed in Chicago, Seattle, and eight other cities. In this case, people forgo energy consumption in order to consume the concept of being greener than their neighbors.
We suggest that examining people’s motivations through the lens of conceptual consumption can help policy makers, marketers, and managers craft incentives to drive desired behavior – for better or for worse.
by Dan Ariely and Michael I. Norton
The full paper on which this article is based is available here.
Fascinating studies!
The coupon experiment makes sense to me. If I have a $2 coupon today, there may be another coupon tomorrow. So unless I need all $4 worth of stuff right now, it’s rational to put off some of the purchase to later, to be able to take advantage of additional savings. And if no coupon shows up, you haven’t lose anything except having to go to the store again.
Conversely, when you have the $6 coupon, it’s rational to buy enough to get the savings. Unless the stuff is perishable, you were likely to buy it eventually. This is why I always buy at least $25 at Amazon.com to get the free shipping; I buy more books at a time, but less often, and I still read all of them.
This research you do is very interesting. I am interested in the policy of intellectual property and particularly patents (I am a Canadian patent agent). As I am sure you know there has been a debate since pretty much the beginning of patents for inventions as to whether patents do more harm than good. Discussion of deadweight loss and so forth abound on anti-patent side, whereas the incentive to invest in innovation abut the pro-patent side.
The basic idea behind granting of patents is to grow wealth by encouraging the development of ideas that can generate the wealth. This is done with patents by granting an exclusive right to the inventor for a limited time to practice the idea. That is, a patent holder can stop others from making/using etc. the invention.
While policymakers tend to indicate that the granting of patents encourages disclosure of new and useful ideas for the betterment of societies, I think the clearer function of disclosure is to define and delimit the property being made by the patent so that the public, faced with dealing with non-physical property, can objectively view what the property is and whether what they are doing can be considered “stealing” or not.
In my view, the function of the exclusive right gives the idea heft and permits its defense from misappropriation, thus giving the owner the security he needs to invest in the idea that the public has been told about.
Not being an economist, my understanding of the functions of any property from an economic standpoint are not rigourous. but from what I understand, in a nutshell the wisdom of putting institutions and rules in place governing the concept of property is based on the idea of ownership of a piece of property being the only way, in a relatively free market society, that an individual will take the risks to steward the property and develop wealth based on it. Otherwise you run into this tragedy of the commons problem.
Perhaps it is a PR position to prop up patents by telling the public it first and foremost encourages disclosure of new and useful ideas for the public good. While this is perhaps a useful byproduct, it would be interesting in this world of blogs and other forms of public expression that yield all sorts of ideas but do not yield the heft of patents to know whether the benefit of patents to the public stem more from the stewardship of the idea through its ownership than its disclosure. For example, the US Bayh-Dole Act giving publicly-funded institutions the option to own the patents resulting from the funded research was instituted based on this stewardship argument, and it has had an important effect on the development of products and services by universities and other publicly funded research institutions.
The latest debate lies in whether patents truly encourage innovation and investment and effort in innovation, or whether they are a drain on innovation. Those who do not think patents are a good idea for software, for example, cite the open source software movement as evidence that this patent-given incentive to invest in innovation by individuals is not needed for software.
The thinking on the pro-patent side I believe is based on the idea that a person will rationally apply for patent to get ownership in an idea, so that they will invest or attract investment in that idea. However, as invention itself is intensely personal, I am curious as to whether you have undertaken or are aware of any research that deals from a irrational behavioural point of view with this incentive to invent, and whether it can inform the policy debate on patenting of software, life science related invention, business methods, and so forth.
I’m not a famous economist and do not hold a degree in anything. I’m a 62 year old house wife who along with 10 other women go through all the ads and coupons for Macy’s Safeway, Borders books etc. and we share our coupons and advise each other on the good deals. I now understand the concept behind the “deal”. I can hardly wait to share this at book club. You are correct some of us would drive 20 miles to spend the $100 that would allow us to recieve a $20 discount….on things we wouldn’t have purchased in the first place. Wow. Go figure.
I also agree that the people who got the coupon for $1 off a $2 purchase made a rational choice in tailoring their purchases closer to the $2 minimum. It’s certainly what I would do.
Glancing through the pdf that this article references, I’m not sure if you’re saying that the choice is actually irrational. It seems as though all that’s being said is that it’s possible to influence physical consumption with more abstract goals. (I would disagree that the goal implied by the coupon is a kind of consumption, but now we’re just disagreeing over words.)
The goal introduced is to save money. There have been many times when I have gone to the store to buy a particular item, but once I get there I find a different item at a lower cost, which I am satisfied to substitute for my original intention, in the interest of saving money. If I wanted hamburgers for dinner, but when I get to the grocery store, I see that spagetti sauce is on for half-price, I may very well change my supper plans in order to save a few dollars. Am I being irrational? Not in the least.
The situation is slightly different with the coupon, but as Barry pointed out, participants don’t know if there will be a coupon next time they come. If there is, their strategy is perfect.
The Amazon analogy that he raises in fact demonstrates both types of behaviour adjustments. For me here in Canada, the purchase threshold for free shipping from Amazon is $39. If I have about $30 in purchases that I really want, it’s worth finding another book to top up my purchase and get the free shipping. But, similarly, if I have $60 worth of books that I want, it makes sense for me to actually LOWER my purchase to something closer to $39. Why? Because I know that at some point in the future, I will return to Amazon to buy more books. If the next group of books that I want is only around $20, I’d have to top up again with books that I may only marginally want. Whereas if I still have some books that I delayed from my last purchase, I will already be at the $39 level.
On your second point, consuming goals, will removing existing boundaries for certain purchase scenarios help to increase consumption?
Hi Dan,
Don’t want to derail the current discussion, but your studies on how a less-attractive choice makes a similar candidate more attractive has me intrigued.
How do you think this (the idea of contrasting similar choices) would work in election systems?
For the last decade I’ve been interested in single- and multi-winner election systems that are robust according to several criteria. The primary motivation is to reveal the voters’ true preferences without excessive need for compromise or strategic voting. I realize that due to Arrow’s Paradox this is not possible, but some methods show promise.
In particular, Concorcet completion schemes such as Ranked Pairs (Tideman) or Beatpath (Schulze) satisfy the Immunity to Clones Criterion — a set of nearly identical candidates will not hurt each other by being on the ballot together.
What intrigues me is that according to your studies, a set of clones might actually increase the overall attractiveness of that faction.
But what I see in practice is just the opposite … e.g., radical extremist leftists cast a shadow on their more moderate liberal counterparts, and similarly on the other side of the spectrum.
Is your finding more broadly applicable in politics, or is there something else at work?
I recently spotted a special offer in a supermarket, advertising a big jar of a popular chocolate spread for 1,99 Euros (instead of 2,49 I believe).
In addition to this generous discount the banner stated “4 jars per customer at max” and given the sudden rationing, I immediately felt inclined to get the maximum benefit out of the deal.
There were jars piled up in abundance, stocked to the ceiling, and I couldnt help but admire the insight that must have preceded this new deal, enhancing the discount-inherent time limit with an unexpected numerical one and by that suggesting a higher demand and harvesting a higher volume.
I’d be happy to read about experiments based on this setting as opposed to the same discount without suggesting the ideal number of purchases. After all, it might turn out that I’m the only one who would fall for these transparent schemings: I “only” bought 3 jars.
The theories(or rather facts) that Dan Ariely presents in this book are absolutely amazing!!!! I enjoy the techniques he uses to explore relativity and coherence in regards to the decision making process. This has somewhat led me to rethink the way I approach making what I would normally think of as rational choices. I especially enjoyed Chapter Three-(The cost of zero cost)The whole concept of how free entices us into making irrational decisions, challenged me to change my idea of past choices wherein I had thought that “free” was the most rational way to go….After all free always seems like a win-win situation. =)I am enjoying every minute of this book!!!
http://www.phumylaptop.com.vn/ Phú Mỹ Laptop chuyên mua bán laptop, nhập khẩu máy tính xách tay.
The section of your book concerning the “Pepsi Challenge” neglects a piece of information. It has reportedly been found then when subjects are given small sample sips of Pepsi and Coke in double blind experiments, they choose Pepsi, but when given larger samples, more like a full 12 0z can, they choose Coke. This means that subjects who choose Pepsi over Coke after a sip in blind tests, but choose Coke when provided information about what they are drinking, are on at least some occasions acting rationally, not responding to advertising imagery or cultural context. They know that Pepsi is sickeningly sweet because that has been their personal experience, validated through previous trials. I expect there is an irrational component in some of the hard and fast preferences betwen two such similar products, but the extent of that component cannot be mapped by comparing blind sip test results with informed test results. The moral: Unless you can guarantee that you have captured all the relevant variables in an experimental design (which is possible only in an experiment more trivial than the “Pepsi Challenge”, if you can imagine one), don’t guarantee your results.
Sorry about the above. I thought I was responding to the book “Predictably Irrational” in general, not to a specific posting to the blog. My bad.