Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Choice heuristics, Braun LaTour (2004) tested whether post-experience…
Choice heuristics
availability
Based on how easy it is to bring something to mind
For consumer psychology, if someone buys a computer, and it is broken they may be less likely to buy again from the same company
We ignore the statistical probability of an event in favor of what is easy to remember or anecdotal experience
representativeness
make comparison to a best-known example in a category
See a cheap huawei phone, compare it to apple (which is the leader for phones) and see them as basically similar products
Heuristics are mental shortcuts that help make decisions
Braun LaTour (2004) tested whether post-experience advertising can influence recollection
Researchers showed participants false information about Disney and expected it would change what they remembered about their experience at Disneyland. They expected that those who were aware of the false advertising would be less likely to have false memories about the character at Disneyland and would be less likely to change what they remembered about Disneyland.
66 undergraduate students in US university, 32 females and 34 males, average age 21
Independent measures design
2 experimental conditions (either they see the advertising or do not)
Advertisements were autobiographical with a personal experience of Disney
True advertisement included a picture of Mickey Mouse and made a reference to shaking hands with him. The false advertisement replaced this wit ha picture and reference to shaking hands with Bugs Bunny.
Ads were given out in a classroom setting where customers read and evaluate the advert and rate their own attitude, affect, and likelihood of visiting Disneyland, and were asked about past experiences at Disneyland and seeing certain characters
Most participants did not identify the incorrect information but they also normally did not have a difference in their recollections, but they were more likely recall bugs bunny (22% vs 7% likelihood).
Three false conditions for the memory: picture, words, or words and pictures
100 students in a US university, all procedures and measures identical to experiment 1
Conditions with pictures had stronger effect than words on false memory
Added a memory test
Used same as advertisements as other parts of the experiment, 110 participants randomly allocated to three conditions
Participants were in groups of 30 in computer lab, given advertising and asked to provide feedback. They have ten minutes to write about their first experience at Disney resort (recognition task) and then completed a computer task. Implicit Association Test, participants were written advertising memory task to see if they recall everything from the ad they saw earlier with specific questions.
Participants remembered more from the pictorial condition, with both pictures and words, they remembered 6.2 items on average, with just the picture 5.1, and with only verbal condition, 4.7 items. 88% in the pictures and words condition recalled bugs bunny and only 47% in the verbal condition.
Anchoring and purchase quantity decisions
Anchoring is an effect where one price or number becomes seen as a standard in our mind.
Wansink et al (1998) suggested point of purchase promotions can increase sales. Two field experiments were done in the study and two lab experiments.
multiple unit prices
Buy one, get one 35 % off
"On sale 6 cans for 3$" versus "on sale 50 cents"
purchase quantity limits
limiting maximum purchase amounts can create a scarcity effect
suggestive selling
field experiment: one week, comparing multiple with single unit promotional pricing in 86 stores. Baseline scores were calculated over the previous six months, dependent variable was calculated as percentage change in sales compared with baseline. Standardized size of shelf label, original price was displayed. Thirteen items were included. Results showed multiple unit promotional resulted in 32% increase in sales over the single unit control. 12 of 13 products had higher sales with multiple unit pricing, and for 9 of the products the difference was statistically significant. p value of less than 00.01%
A potential weakness of the study could be that customers bought more because they didn't understand how the pricing per unit worked during the sale
Examined the effect of purchase quantity limit. Customers have a higher purchase limit. Will it increase their purchases? Conducted over three consecutive evenings in three supermarkets in the USA. Each market had a display of the same Campbell's soup item discounted about 10%. Each market presented one limit notice each evening so each store offered each limit condition on one evening. 'No limit per person.' "Limit 12 per person." "Limit 4 per person'" Shoppers were observed unobtrusively. 914 shoppers observed , data was collected on whether they purchased soup and how much they purchased. Data for 8 shoppers was excluded because they purchased over the limit.
with no limit, average purchase amount was 3.3 cans of soup. With limit of 4, average was 3.5. With limit of 12, average 7. The limit of 12 per customer increased the sales per buyer by 112%.
Studied anchor-based use slogans. 120 undergraduates from a university partiipated in shopping scenario study with six well-known products at one of theree price levels. Convenience store price with no discount, 20% discount, and 40$ discount. All products included either no quantity anchor or a specific anchor. "Snickers bars... buy them for your freezer." Versus "Snickers bars... buy 18 for your freezer" Participatns were not told whether product was discounted and were asked to give purchase quantity intentions for all products. Slogans and quantities and discounts increased the purchase intentions.
Knutson's study on pre-cognitive decisions
Method: 26 participants took an fMRI scan to investigate brain activity involved in purchase decisions. During the fMRI, participants see pictures of food for four seconds, and then the product with price for four seconds, and then choose whether or not to hypothetically purchase the product. Anything they choose will be added to a pool of items from which they will randomly purchase one at the end of the experiment. Then participants fixate on a cross before beginning the next stage. Total of 80 trials. 26 healthy right handed adults did the experiment, age 18-26. Total of 14 participant's data was not used. Results found that brain activation in key regions was associated with purchase decision more than consumer preference was. (nucleus accumbens, insula and mesial prefrontal cortex.)
Choice blindness Hal (2010)
Aim: to examine how making a choice of product preference was affected by later mislabeling of the product
Sample: 180 participants (118 female)
Particiapants try different types of jam and tea. After they try each variety and select a favorite, the participant tries their choice again and explain the choice. However, the experimenter switches the items prior to this.
Stimulus was three pairs of jam and three pairs of tea. Jam and teas are already rated on similarity by participants.
Experimenters selected two pairs of the most dissimilar jams and the most similar
Blackcurrant and blueberry, ginger and lime, and cinnamon apple and grapefruit. Apple pie and honey tea, caramel cream tea, and cinnamon/pernod and mango.
Took place at a supermarket, participants were told that they were doing quality control of jam and tea. Participants select a favorite, and half of the participants were told they would receive their choice
Two experimenters helped with the method, one taking notes and asking questions/dealing with recording device, another doing the preference test. Either the jam or the tea was manipulate dfor each participant.
Participatns use a 10 point scale to rate their preference and were told that they could revise their rating after the second sample. After sampling both, they sample and rate preferences again After completing the test, they were asked if they noticed anything unusual.
They debriefed them and asked again if they noticed anything unusual.
Results were separated into categories: concurrent detection, retrospective detection, and sensory change-detection
Concurrent detection: after tasting the product, customer voiced concerns. The experimenters did not use this data but they still completed the experiment trial.
Sensory change detection: participants did not report detecting the manipulation but described the taste or smell as different somehow the second time around
retrospective detection: participants claimed to notice but only reported at the end of the experiment
about 33% of trials had detected manipulation