Tuesday, 9 October 2012
6 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 (see: experiences beat possessions).
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.
In their first study participants recalled past experiential and material purchases costing at least $50 and were asked to rate their satisfaction with them. People were consistently more satisfied with their experiential purchases compared with their material purchases.
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.
When it's easy to compare two things, like salaries, dissatisfaction isn't far away because there's always someone who earns more than you or, in this case, has a better mp3 player than you. And if they don't have it now, they will in six months because that's the nature of consumer culture.
There's a crucial difference in the way we make decisions about material and experiential purchases, as revealed by the second study.
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.
However, when people choose experiential purchases they tend to use a strategy psychologists call 'satisficing'. This means setting a minimum standard for a purchase then choosing the first option that fits the bill. Studies show that this leads to greater satisfaction with purchases and people are relatively untroubled by the existence of slightly better options.
Although maximising seems the better strategy, paradoxically it leaves people less satisfied than settling (sorry 'satisficing', ugh).
Imagine you buy a new electronic gadget costing $1,000. After you've bought it, do you ever go back to look at the other options, just in case? Would that change if it was a vacation you'd bought instead at the same price?
When researchers simulated the situation they found that, having bought a gadget participants were more likely to continue investigating the alternatives than if they'd bought a vacation, despite not being explicitly asked to do so.
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.
It's always the way: right after you buy it they bring out a new, improved model, or introduce better options.
When Carter and Gilovich simulated this situation in the lab, participants reported that the new option effect was more disturbing when buying a watch, a pair of jeans or a laptop than when buying a holiday, movie ticket or fancy dining experience.
Once again experiential beat material purchases.
Like the introduction of new options, retailers also have a habit of dropping the price right after you buy something. Worse, the next day you spot it cheaper somewhere else.
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.
Similarly participants reported being jealous of rivals who'd paid less for material purchases at another retailer, but weren't so jealous when it came to experiential purchases.
This all begs the question of how we can be more satisfied with material purchases, other than simply trying to avoid all the above.
Carter and Gilovich wondered if it comes down to how we view our purchases. Take music for example. Buying music can be viewed as both an experiential and a material purchase; it's an object (even if digital), and it's the experience of listening to the music: where you are, how it makes you feel and what you're doing at the time.
Perhaps thinking experientially can help us avoid disappointment?
In their last experiment the researchers encouraged half their participants to think of music as a material purchase and the other half as an experiential purchase. They were then told the price had been reduced. Sure enough participants who were thinking in experiential terms were less bothered by missing out on a bargain and therefore likely to be more satisfied with their purchase.
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.
By thinking experientially we can make more of what we already have and ward off the invidious comparisons that can make the treadmill of consumer culture so unsatisfying.
Posted by Greg at 08:00