As consumers, we are often faced with the opportunity to purchase a new, enhanced product—such as an upgraded cell phone—even though the device we currently own is still fully functional. To justify the purchase to ourselves, we behave in rather strange ways.
Whether it is the next iPhone model, a new flat TV screen, or a more fashionable collection of a favorite line of clothes, everyone tends to be very excited when big upgrades come out. Between the date of the announcement and the release date, we spend time weighing options and thinking through the potential purchase: what are the new features of the product? Is the upgrade a significantly enhanced product in comparison to the version we own? And, even more important, do we actually need an upgrade in the first place?
But there is another important thing we do: we treat our current products in ways that may break them, often unconsciously, so as to have a proper justification to upgrade. In a sense, we behave like the people depicted in a recent Virgin Mobile TV commercial, named “Happy Accidents” — a consumer microwaves his cell phone instead of a burrito, a lab worker drops his mobile into a vat of toxic sludge, and a commuter throws her phone into the backseat of a departing taxi. Oops! As becomes clear at the end of this commercial, these phone owners are all looking forward to “accidentally” destroying or losing their devices, thus necessitating an upgrade purchase. The advertisement has an element of truth. I have done with two colleagues (Silvia Bellezza of Harvard Business School and Josh Ackerman of the University of Michigan), shows that knowing a product upgrade is available leads consumers to mistreat the products they own.
Research suggests that the way we weigh ourselves mirrors the way we behave in general. Consider a conducted by Snyder, Kleck, Strenta, and Mentzer in the late 1970s. Participants had to choose one of two rooms in which to watch a movie and fill out a questionnaire. In one room, participants were told, there was a handicapped person; in the other, there was a non-handicapped one. When the same movie clip was being shown in both rooms, people were more likely to choose to sit with the handicapped individual. But when different movies were being presented, a situation that created a justification for selecting one room over the other, the majority avoided the handicapped person. Thus, the presence of a justification allowed and promoted less virtuous behavior.
As consumers, we are often faced with the opportunity to purchase a new, enhanced product—such as an upgraded cell phone—even though the device we currently own is still fully functional. To justify the purchase to ourselves, we behave in rather strange ways. Here is how my colleagues and I showed this. , we gave participants a basic ceramic mug that was worth about $1 and told them they could keep it. We then asked them to play the game Jenga. In Jenga, players try to remove individual blocks from a pre-assembled tower of relatively small wooden blocks without collapsing the tower. To encourage participants to keep playing, we offered them extra payment for each block removed. Before the game began, we placed their mug on top of the tower. To emphasize the risk of each decision to remove a block, we told participants that they were not allowed to catch the mug if it fell and that they would not receive a new mug if theirs broke.
And what if there was a crack on your phone? Our research shows that you’d consider the damage to be much more serious if an upgrade is available on the market than if it is not. Interestingly, the effect of upgrades applies beyond durable goods. In fact, there is evidence of similarly careless behavior when “better models” are available in the romantic domain. shows that people often denigrate their romantic partners when exposed to partner “upgrades”—attractive opposite-sex others. As we become aware of these improved options, we start being less careful and attentive toward our current partner.
No comments:
Post a Comment