Advertisement

Imperative 2: Embrace the All-Encompassing Nature of Customers’ Irrationality

  • Colin Shaw
  • Ryan Hamilton
Chapter
  • 1.6k Downloads

Abstract

In an experiment conducted by researchers at Boston University, a group of people drove one of four different cars in a computer game. The cars all performed the same; the only difference was that one of the cars had a Red Bull logo on it. They found that people who drove the Red Bull cars drove faster, took more risks, and had more accidents than people driving the other cars. When interviewed after the game, people didn’t say they drove faster because of the logos – but clearly the logos had a subconscious effect.1

Keywords

Pill Group Customer Experience Endowment Effect Compromise Effect Placebo Pill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Brasel, Adam S. and James Gips. “Red Bull ‘Gives You Wings’ for better or worse: A Double-edged impact of brand exposure on consumer performance.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 21. Issue 1, (2011); 57-64. ScienceDirect.com. Web. 18 December 2015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057740810001257Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stebner, Beth. “Seeing red: Study finds crimson backgrounds cause eBay Shoppers to place higher bids.” www.dailymail.co.uk. 17 July 2012. Web. 18 December 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175121Seeing-red-Study-finds-crimson-backgrounds-cause-eBay-shoppers-place-higher-bids.htmlGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salmon, Felix. “The Economic Paradoxes of Contemporary Art.” upstart.biz-journals.com. 28 July 2008. Web. 3 August 2015. http://upstart.bizjournals.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/07/28/the-economic-paradoxes-of-contemporary-art.html.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Storms, Michael D., and Richard E. Nisbett. “Insomnia and the attribution process.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16.2 (1970): 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Novemsky, Nathan, Ravi Dhar, Norbert Schwarz and Itamar Simonson. ”Preference Fluency in Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research (2007); 347–356. Dornslife.usc.edu. Web. 18 December 2015. https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/780/docs/07_jmr_novemsky_et_al_preference_fluency.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy Decamp Wilson. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, 84, 233. Retrieved from http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu, Huel-Chen and Wen-Llang Llu. “Using Decoy Effects to Influence an Online Brand Choice: The Role of Price-Quality Trade-offs.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. April 2011, 14(4): 235–239. (print) doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0262.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ariely, Dan, and Thomas s. Wallsten. “Seeking Subjective Dominanace in Mutlidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect.” Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes 63.3 (1995; 223–232) People.duke.edu Web 18 December 2015. http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/Papers/PI/ade.pdf. Frederick, Shane, Leonard Lee, and Ernest Baskin. “The Rules of Attraction.” Faculty.som. yale.edu. Web. 18 December 2015. http://faculty.som.yale.edu/ShaneFrederick/Rules_of_Attraction.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vendantam, Shankar. “The Decoy Effect, or How to Win an Election.” www.washingtonpost.com. 7 April 2007. Web. 3 October 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100973.html.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharpe. Kathryn M., Ricahrd Stelin, and Joel Huber. “Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand.” Journal of Consumer Research. (406–422). Faculty.fuqua.duke.edu. Web. 18 December 2015. https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~jch8/bio/Papers/JCR%20Oct%202008%20Extemeness%20aversion.pdf Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedgcock, William, and Akshay R. Rao. “Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study.” Journal of Marketing Research 46.1 (2009): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ariely, Dan, and Thomas S. Wallsten. “Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63.3 (1995): 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger, Jonah and Gráinne Fitzsimons “Dogs on the Street, Pumas on Your Feet: How Cues in the Environment Influence Product Evaluation and Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research: 45, No. 1 (2008): 1–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vohs, Kathleen D., Nicole L. Mead, and Miranda R. Goode. “The Psychological Consequences of Money.” Science 314, 1154 (2006); Citeseerx. ist.psu.edu. Web 18 December 2015. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.186.5454&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duclos, Rod, Echo Wen Wan, and Yuwei Jiang. “Show me the honey! Effects of social exclusion on financial risk-taking.” Journal of Consumer Research 40.1 (2013): 122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Shaw
    • 1
  • Ryan Hamilton
    • 2
  1. 1.Beyond PhilosophyOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Emory University’s Goizueta Business SchoolAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations