"
. With Powerlessness and consumption
Posted Under: Consumer Behavior
Since feelings of lost control and so on have been a recurring theme here on Murketing.com lately, I thought I’d pass this along. I read yesterday an article in the Journal of Consumer Research (from the April 2008 issue) that’s summarized on Science Daily as follows: “Feeling powerless can trigger strong desires to purchase products that convey high status, according to new research.”
In three experiments, the authors asked participants to either describe a situation where they had power over another person, or one in which someone had power over them. Then the researchers showed them items and asked how much they would be willing to pay.
After recalling situations where they were powerless, participants were willing to pay more for items that signal status, like silk ties and fur coats, but not products like minivans and dryers. They also agreed to pay more for a framed picture of their university if it was portrayed as rare and exclusive.
The authors describe the implications:
“It suggests that in contemporary America, people use consumer purchases to compensate for psychological states of insecurity. Spending beyond one’s means in obtaining status-related items is a costly coping strategy for dealing with psychological threats such as feeling powerless.”
Well, what do you make of this? Does it ring true?
If nothing else, it offers a counterpoint, or at least an interesting asterisk to, for instance, the assertion from Business Week that a “New Frugality” is upon us: “In the past, consumers have gone shopping the moment the sun came out. But this time? Market researchers trying to divine the consumer psyche are picking up signs that attitudes are changing.” The magazine cites a survey in which consumers say they intend to continue frugal habits currently being forced upon them, even when the economy recovers.
Then again, if you asked consumers whether they’d pay more for a status-object if they felt “powerless,” obviously they’d say no. That doesn’t mean the research cited above necessarily holds water; my point is that asking consumers questions generally leads to consumers giving what they figure is the “right” answer — it doesn’t mean a lot. There’s often a gap between what we say and how we behave.
But you knew that.
Anyway, more on this in the days ahead, I am sure.
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A
Reader Comments
I def agree about the difference between what people say and what they do, or similarly: there’s a difference between norms (what people think they ought to think about smg) and values (what they actually do think about it). That’s why this kind of experiment can be useful. They tricky bit, though, is how to generalize one’s research findings. I mean, what people do in an experiment setting does not say anything about what they do in their everyday lives (outside the laboratory, so to speak). Plus, there are, to say the least, quite many people living in the US, so a study of a bunch of people is not enough to tell us about what ‘Americans in general’ think and do.
But the results from the study makes sense because it implies that the consumption of high status goods make people feel more ’empowered’.
“As an analogy, consider two individuals, one a successful millionaire and the other a recently demoted banker,” write the authors, “Both might view a Rolex watch as a clear status symbol. However for the millionaire, wearing the watch might not make the millionaire feel any more powerful than he/she normally feels. In contrast, for our demoted banker, wearing the same watch might make the banker feel significantly more powerful.”
That’s hardly very surprising, is it? Sounds pretty common sense to me.