1

The Role of Desires in Sequential Impulsive Choices

Presented by

Mahesh Gopinath

Paper withPaper with Utpal M. Dholakia,

Rice University

Richard P. Bagozzi,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dean’s Research SeminarOld Dominion University

October 7, 2005

2

Background Sequential Decision making

Multiple decisions within a short, contiguous time-frame

Interdependent decisions (Dhar & Simonson, 1999) Shopping trips or sessions (Dhar, Huber, & Khan,

2004) Managerial decisions

Impulsive choices Selection of an unplanned option (Rook & Fisher,

1999) Question: How does a first impulsive choice

influence a second impulsive choice?

3

Sequential Decision Making:BACKGROUND CONTRAST EFFECT

Background contrast effects (Simonson & Tversky, 1992; Priester, Dholakia & Fleming, 2004)

Tradeoff values between attributes in a first choice serve as a frame of reference for tradeoff values in later choice tasks

First Choice: $3.50/ 100 grams or $4.50/120 grams

First Choice: $7.50/ 300 grams or $8.50/500 grams

Second Choice: $5.00/ 150 grams or $7.00/210 grams

4

Sequential Decision Making: HIGHLIGHTING

Highlighting (Dhar & Simonson, 1999)

Sequential choices are made using the same criteria as the prior choice

When consumer frames task as a tradeoff between a goal (e.g., enjoyment) and a resource (e.g., money)

From Dhar & Simonson, 1999

5

Sequential Decision Making:BALANCING

Balancing (Dhar & Simonson, 1999)

Opposing criteria used in the sequential choice

When consumer frames task as tradeoff between two opposing goals (pleasure and health)

6

Sequential Decision Making:SHOPPING MOMENTUM EFFECT

Dhar, Huber, and Khan 2004Initial purchase provides a psychological impulse –

momentum drives purchase of second, unrelated productIllustration: (taken from Dhar et al. working paper)

7

Sequential Decision Making Another possibility: Consider the role of

motivation explicitly Consumer’s motivational state may be

influenced through the initial decision making process

Relevant for impulsive choices which are driven by desires (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991)

Recent work on self-regulation (e.g., Muraven, & Baumeister, 2000)

8

Sequential Impulsive Choices Impulsive choice: option chosen deviates

from one that the decision maker planned on choosing, or usually chooses Driven by desires since it involves deviation

from plan or habit (“urges”, “cravings”, etc.) Separation in time between choosing and

acting Emphasizes decision implementation We study unrelated choices – second choice

is in a different category or domain than the first choice

9

Sequential Mitigation Effect “Merely participating in a prior impulsive

choice reduces impulsiveness of choice in the subsequent task”

Specific mechanism hypothesized: sequent choice task musters a lower level of desire on account of having participated in a prior impulsive choice beforehand

10

Hypothesis

When sequential impulsive choices are desire-driven, participation in a prior impulsive choice will reduce the intensity of desire experienced for the impulsive option(s) in the subsequent choice, leading to a reduced likelihood of choosing impulsively – Sequential mitigation effect (SME)

11

Experiment One: SME Demonstration

N = 132 Single choice (“gourmet sandwich”

scenario alone) or Two choices (“sweater” followed by “gourmet sandwich” scenario) conditions

Dependent measures: desire to buy and likelihood of buying

12

Experiment One: Scenarios Sweater scenario: “Imagine that you have gone to the

mall to buy a few pairs of socks. As you are walking through the mall, your eyes fall upon a fashionable and attractive sweater. It happens to be in your size and favorite color. The salesperson tells you that the piece on display is the last one left, and they are unlikely to get more of the sweaters in this particular style in the future.”

Gourmet sandwich scenario: “Imagine that you have gone to a cafeteria to get a healthy and nutritious salad for lunch. As you are looking through the display case while standing in line, you see a special gourmet sandwich.”

13

Experiment One Results

Dependent Variables Single choice

Two choices

Desire for gourmet sandwich

4.7* 4.1

Purchase likelihood of gourmet sandwich

58.0** 44.5

Correlation between desire for first and second impulsive choiceFor all respondents = .10For those with high desire (5 or more) in first task = -.30

Correlation between purchase likelihoodsFor all respondents = .22For those with high desire (5 or more) in first task = -.10

14

Experiment Two: Conceptual Replication

N = 76 Single choice (“cheesecake” scenario

alone) or Sequent choice (“sweater” followed by “cheesecake”) conditions

Dependent measure: Participant’s choice in cheesecake scenario

15

Sweater Scenario“ “Ms. A is a 22-year old college student with a part-time

job. It is two days before she gets her next paycheck and at present, she has only $25 left for necessities in her bank account. In addition, she does have two credit cards that she often uses. Today, Ms. A needs to buy a pair of warm socks for an outdoor party coming up this weekend. After a busy and productive morning at work, she goes with her friend Ms. B to the mall to purchase the socks. As they are walking through Kaufman’s, Ms. A sees a great looking sweater on sale for $75. The sweater is of a style that she has wanted to buy for a long time, and is in her favorite color. The helpful salesperson tells Ms. A that they have just one piece left in her size, and it is unlikely that they will get more pieces in this style in the future.”

16

Sweater Scenario Choices(1) buy the socks only; not even think about the

sweater,

(2) buy the socks only, want the sweater but not buy it,

(3) decide not to buy the socks and buy the sweater instead,

(4) buy both the sweater and the socks with a credit card,

(5) buy both the socks and the sweater plus matching slacks and a shirt to complete the outfit.

17

Cheesecake Scenario“Ms. A is a 22-year old college student. She enjoys exercising and running and likes to eat health food, and generally eats a healthy salad for lunch. On a weekday, after a busy and productive morning at work, she goes to the mall with her friend, Ms. B, to buy a pair of socks. Walking though the mall, she passes Spizio’s, her favorite deli, in the food-court. As she is looking though the display, she sees a mouth-watering tray of strawberry cheesecake, her favorite dessert and feels a strong craving for it immediately.”

18

Cheesecake Scenario Choices(1) buy the healthy and low-calorie salad for lunch,

not even think about the cheesecake,

(2) buy the healthy and low-calorie salad for lunch, want the cheesecake but not buy it,

(3) decide not to buy the salad and buy the cheesecake instead,

(4) buy both the salad and the cheesecake,

(5) buy both the salad and the cheesecake plus a chicken sandwich to complete the meal.

19

Experiment Two ResultsSingle choice Two choices

Choice in cheesecake scenario

59.5% 35.9%

Correlation b/w 1st & 2nd choice for all respondents

.17 (p >.3)

Correlation only for those choosing impulsively in first choice (n=19)

-.22 (p > .3)

20

Experiment Three: Replication in Non-Purchase Domain

N = 180 Single choice (“charity” scenario alone) or

Two choices (“weekend” followed by “charity”) conditions

Dependent measures: desire to give, likelihood of giving, and dollar amount contributed

21

Experiment Three: Scenarios Weekend Scenario: “Imagine that on a particular

Friday, you have planned to spend the evening relaxing and catching up on chores. Around 7 p.m., your friend calls and invites you to go out with a group of your friends.”

Charity Scenario: “Imagine that you have received a tax refund of $500 from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). A few days later, you unexpectedly get a letter from a well-known charity that you have donated to in the past, seeking contributions from you.”

22

Experiment Three Results

Dependent Variables Single choice

Two choices Correl.

Desire for giving to charity

4.2/7.0* 3.8/7.0 -.11

(-.24*)

Likelihood of giving to charity

60.3/100* 52/100

Dollar amount given to charity

$124.9

(p = .06)

$98.7

23

Explaining the SME

Limited resource perspective (Muraven, Baumeister, and colleagues) Desire is a limited resource When experienced the first time, it is depleted Influence of the prior choice will be through the

decision maker’s ability to experience desire for the impulsive option again in the second task

Motivational context effect

24

Experiment Four: Need to Make Impulsive Prior Choices

N = 103 3 conditions: single choice (sweater

alone), impulsive choices (two impulsive scenarios, then sweater), non-impulsive choices (two non-impulsive scenarios, then sweater)

Dependent measures: desire and purchase likelihood for items

25

Experiment Four: Impulsive Choices Scenarios

Cheesecake Scenario: “Imagine that you have gone to a cafeteria to get a healthy and nutritious lunch. As you are looking through the display case while standing in line, you see a mouth-watering tray of strawberry cheesecake.”

MP3 player Scenario: “Imagine that you have gone to a web-site to buy a music CD. As you are surfing through the website, you come across a newly-introduced MP3 player, which you currently do not own. It has a lot of useful features such as a 20 gigabyte storage capacity, 12 hour battery life, and a one-year warranty.”

26

Experiment Four: Non-Impulsive Choices Scenarios

Cheesecake Scenario: “Imagine that you have gone to the cafeteria for lunch see the following two desserts in the display case. Dessert A: Slice of strawberry cheesecakeDessert B: Slice of key lime pie”

MP3 player Scenario: “Imagine that you are surfing on a website, you come across the following two MP3 players” MP3 Player A

MP3 Player B

Features: Memory: 15 GHz Memory: 20 GHz Battery Life: 12 Hours Battery Life: 10Hours Warranty: 12 months Warranty: 6 months

Price: $225 $250

27

Experiment Four: Focal Sweater Scenario

Imagine that you have gone to the mall to buy a few pairs of socks.As you are walking through the mall, your eyes fall upon a fashionable and attractive sweater. It happens to be in your size and favorite color. The salesperson tells you that the piece on display is the last one left, and they are unlikely to get more of the sweaters in this particular style in the future.

28

Experiment Four Results

Dependent Variables Single choice

Impulsive choices

Non-impulsive choices

Desire for sweater 5.7/7.0* 4.4/7.0 5.5/7.0

Purchase likelihood of sweater

78.6/100* 51.9/100 74.6/100

29

Sensitivity to Positive & Negative Outcomes

Another test of why the SME occurs Manipulate or measure factors that directly

influence intensity of desire experienced by decision maker in second task, see if SME is impacted

Sensitivity to positive or negative outcomes (Carver & White, 1994; Higgins, 1999)

Positive outcome sensitivity – counteract depletion of desire – SME will be mitigated

Negative outcome sensitivity - SME heightened

30

Experiment Five 190 undergraduate students 2 Group (single choice, two choices) X 2

Outcome sensitivity (positive, negative) Outcome sensitivity manipulated by

emphasizing either potential gains or losses to participants

Dependent measure: Participant’s choice in cheesecake scenario

31

Experiment Five: Outcome Sensitivity Manipulation

Positive outcome sensitivity: “She thinks of the cheesecake’s delicious taste, and the wonderful feeling she will get, if she eats the strawberry cheesecake.”

Negative outcome sensitivity: “She thinks of the large number of calories she will consume, and of all the long workouts she will have to do, to lose them, if she eats the strawberry cheesecake”

32

Experiment Five: Manipulation Checks

“The scenario described the positive consequences of choosing impulsively”

Mp-o-s = 3.02 vs. Mn-o-s = 2.71

“The scenario described the negative consequences of choosing impulsively”

Mp-o-s = 2.43 vs. Mn-o-s = 2.82

33

Experiment Five Results

3.42

2.20

3.50

2.86

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

One Choice Two choices

Ave

rage

impu

lsiv

ity

of f

ocal

cho

ice

in c

ell

Positive outcome sensitivity

Negative outcome sensitivity

34

Experiment Six Data collected through kiosk-based computer

systems in prominent malls in six US cities 1,025 mall shoppers (54.3% male, 18-69 years of

age, Under $10K to over $100K income) Four conditions

Sweater first, then cheesecake Cheesecake first, then sweater Cheesecake only Sweater only

Gender-specific versions of scenarios

35

Experiment Six Goal was to measure the consumer’s sensitivity

to positive or negative outcomes Limited items could be administered Chose 3 items each from the BIS and BAS

scales (Carver & White, 1994) as measuring sensitivity to positive and negative outcomes

BIS – Behavioral Inhibition System – measures individual’s chronic sensitivity to negative outcomes

BAS – Behavioral Activation System – measures individual’s chronic sensitivity to positive outcomes

36

Experiment Six Positive Outcomes

1. When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized

2. When I am doing well at something, I love to keep at it

3. When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right away.

Negative Outcomes1. If I think something unpleasant is going to happen,

I get pretty “worked” up2. I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know

that somebody is angry at me3. I worry about making mistakes

37

3.18

2.46

3.20

3.06

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

One Choice Sequent Choice

Ave

rage

Im

puls

iven

ess

of F

ocal

Cho

ice

in C

ell Positive Outcome Sensitivity

Negative Outcome Sensitivity

Average impulsiveness of focal choice for cheesecake scenario by group and outcome sensitivity, Experiment Six

38

2.95

2.27

2.85

2.89

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

One Choice Two Choices

Ave

rage

Im

puls

iven

ess

of F

ocal

Cho

ice

in C

ell

Positive Outcome Sensitivity

Negative Outcome Sensitivity

Average impulsiveness of focal choice for sweater scenario by group and outcome sensitivity, Experiment Six

39

Summary of Research and contributions

Show a motivational context bias to add to extensive literature on cognitive context biases

Study impulsive sequential choices applicable to variety of domains

Interesting extension to study interactions with self-control

40

Questions?