In
1974, two economists published an article that has had profound
implications for our understanding of how people make decisions in their
everyday lives. Nobel Prize winners Amos
Tversky and Daniel Kahneman presented strong evidence to suggest that when faced
with a decision, people do not engage in what many believed to be a rational,
calculated process where they collect all relevant information, evaluate that
information, devise alternatives, evaluate those alternatives against criteria
and then make a decision.
Instead
we use heuristics or mental shortcuts that supplant this time-consuming and
arduous process. We use these shortcuts
all the time without even knowing it.
One of the most common is representative bias where we make decisions
based on anecdotal information that we believe is representative of all
situations. We all have generalized a
couple of instances of bad customer service by suggesting that this bad service
is endemic in all situations. Another is
availability bias where we make decisions based on information that is readily
available to us or easier to gather thereby ignoring potentially more accurate
information. How many of us have
researched a symptom of an illness by googling the symptom which, as we know,
presents completely inaccurate and alarmist information that in most cases is
not grounded in any scientific research?
Another is anchoring. It suggests that people will rely too
heavily, or anchor, on one trait or piece of information when making
decisions. For example, companies often
present an often made up manufacturer’s suggested retail price above the retailer’s price. By anchoring the consumer to the suggested
price, the retailer’s price looks much more appealing. Thus rather than conduct a calculated analysis of the retailer’s price by comparing it with other retailers, looking
at how much value one is expected to get our the product, the quality level of
the product - all of which is time-consuming and difficult - consumers will resort to this short cut and make the
decision based on the perceived gap between the suggested price and the
retailer’s price.
The
1974 paper was so powerful that it
remains one of the top cited articles in the social sciences today with an army
of researchers confirming and reconfirming that people use these shortcuts
to make decisions and thus make decisions that are likely not in their best
interests.
The implications of this article are profound. As Harvard Professor Dan Ariely concludes in the below video, “We think we wake up in the morning in control of our decisions” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
This
is a very powerful notion, one that my students continue to struggle with,
despite the reams of statistical evidence available proving them wrong. My undergraduate students, especially, struggle
to accept that their decisions are not made objectively but are in fact reflecting a
particular and rather narrow construction of reality.
Now
imagine the implications for business if marketers are aware that consumers do not
make calculated decisions when purchasing products or services but instead base
their decisions on these aforementioned heuristics:
The goal of business is no longer to meet the needs and wants of society but instead to exploit these decision-making biases to create and shape needs/wants in ways that better align with profitability.
The goal of business is no longer to meet the needs and wants of society but instead to exploit these decision-making biases to create and shape needs/wants in ways that better align with profitability.
I
was quite disturbed to read this
article, in which the author ultimately prescribes how marketers could take
advantage of the heuristics of consumers to increase sales. In other words, rather than work to better
meet the needs of consumers, the idea is to exploit the limitations consumers
have in making decisions so that companies can sell products/services that have
higher margins.
Let
me be clear…it’s articles like these that dampen the hope I have for business in
addressing major societal problems. It’s
not only that these articles exist, it’s that they are presented as a natural evolution
of business strategy. Understanding the real needs of consumers plays second fiddle to exploiting
their cognitive limitations to manipulate and shape those needs so that they
want/need those products and services that better align with financial
goals.
This is a major problem...
This is a major problem...