Advertisement

Consumer Happiness and Decision Making: The Way Forward

Chapter
  • 78 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Rhythm Engineering book series (SRE)

Abstract

In a competitive market, companies must think beyond consumer satisfaction. The key lies in consumer happiness. Disciplines have crossed their traditional boundaries to understand their consumer better. This is reflected in the growing popularity of the use of neuroscientific techniques to understand the consumer brain. On the other hand, the field of behavioral economics has also made progress in understanding human decision making and cognitive bias. In this chapter, we discuss about the cognitive biases that influence decision making (cognitive) and consumer happiness (affective).

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspective, 27, 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, P. L. (1998). Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Brüggemann, P., Günter, A., Lorenz, J-T., & Münstermann, B. (2017). A ‘nudge’ for the better in assistance claims journeys. McKinsey & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. (2005). Three cheers—psychological, theoretical, empirical—for loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII(129), 129–133 (May 2005).Google Scholar
  6. Chang, K.-P. (2019). Behavioral cconomics versus traditional economics: Are they very different? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3350088 or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350088
  7. Charpentier, C. J., De Martino, B., Sim, A. L., Sharot, T., & Roiser, J. P. (2016). Emotion-induced loss aversion and striatal-amygdala coupling in low-anxious individuals. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(4), 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, Q., & He, G. (2017). Deciding for future Selves Reduces Loss Aversion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Seltman, H. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1078–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein, D.G., Johnson, E.J., Hermann, A. & Heitmann, M. (2008). Nudge your customers toward better choices. Decision making, Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  11. Haller, A., & Schwabe, L. (2014). Sunk costs in the human brain. NeuroImage, 97, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hull, C. L. (1934). Rat’s speed-of-locomotion gradient in the approach to food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iyyenger, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahn, I., Yeshurun, Y.I.., Rotshtein, P., Fried, I., Ben-Bashat, D., Hendler, T. (2002). The role of the amygdala in signaling prospective outcome of choice. Neuron, 33, 983–994.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(4), 263–291.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunhen, C. M., & Knutson, B. (2005). The neural basis of financial risk taking. Neuron, 47(5), 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(42), 15623–15628.Google Scholar
  18. Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The ethology of homo economicus. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reutskaja, E., Lindner, A., Nagel, R., Andersen, R., A. & Camerer, C. F. (2018). Choice overload reduces neural signatures of choice set value in dorsal striatum and anterior cingulate cortex. Nature Human Behaviour, 2 (12) 925-935.Google Scholar
  20. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Harper Perennial: US.Google Scholar
  22. Sunstein, C. R. (2016). People Prefer System 2 Nudges (Kind Of). Duke Law Journal, 66, SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2731868 or http://dx.doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2731868
  23. Thaler, R. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, l, 39–60.Google Scholar
  24. Thaler, R., H., & Sunstein. C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93 (2), 175-179.Google Scholar
  25. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 30th Jan, 453–458.Google Scholar
  27. Urbina, D. A. & Ruiz-Villaverde, A. (2019), A Critical Review of Homo Economicus from Five Approaches. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78, 63-93.Google Scholar
  28. Weber, M., & Camerer, C. F. (1998). The disposition effect in securities trading: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 33, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Webinks

  1. Reference for Daniel Putler Homonoff (2017)Google Scholar
  2. Ran Kivetz, Oleg Urminsky, Yuhuang Zheng. “The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention.”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of ManagementRanchiIndia
  2. 2.Dept of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations