All posts by : Cultural Relevance Team

The Having vs Using Effect has been proven by many different researchers, amongst them Goodman & Irmak (2012) who carried out a series of studies on this subject. They showed the way in which people have a tendency to prefer and be willing to pay more for products or services that offer multiple functions, even if they’re unlikely to actually make use of them. For example, we are more drawn towards subscription tariffs (phone contracts, travel cards, etc.) rather than paying for something just as and if we use it even though this could actually work out cheaper for us if we don’t in reality use something that much. Equally, we are drawn towards something with the largest number of, or most up-to-date, functions and features without fully considering the likelihood that we will actually need or want these.

Goodman & Irmak discovered a number of reasons behind the Having vs Using Effect. The more complex and technical the functions of a product, or otherwise the less familiar they are to us, the more we are at risk of falling victim to the Having vs Using Effect as we will struggle to effectively evaluate the true amount of usage we will get from the different functions in question. We’re also likely to think that a product with more features must be a better product, simply because it has something that another product doesn’t, and so are willing to pay more for this “better” product irrespective of whether its extra “features” are useful for us. We are prone to think more in terms of what we’re going to “have” (the overall product, which is perceived to be a better one) rather than what we will realistically “use”. This cognitive bias stems from widespread materialism and “ostentatious consumerism”, whereby we buy the latest models filled with potentially useless functions simply for the social status they bring. We imagine this type of product to seem more fashionable and to make us seem as though we are “on the pulse” for all the latest technologies etc.

Studies have shown that in a situation where we are forced to think about our actual usage of an item then we often pick different products. By putting aside the number of functions available and actually picking a product based on our own individual requirements, a much better and more satisfying purchase is often made. In the commercial world, the Having vs Using Effect is often used to sell new and function-heavy items – that are generally much more expensive – by presenting these items to customers in terms of what they could “have” rather than what they will actually “use” so that they consider them in their totality rather than in detail. The most recent iPhone is a great example of this as it is sold quite simply as the “new, must-have iPhone” without any real detail about what new functions it offers in particular.

The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that affects our perceptions, leading us to base our judgments on a selective amount of information we have concerning something or someone. We often tend to use just our first impressions to create a generalised idea of what someone or something is like in totality. For example, we often see someone in a positive light, arbitrarily awarding them many positive characteristics based solely on one positive trait we know to be true, whether or not this one trait is in any way related to the current context or not. In other words, we attribute positive characteristics to people or objects based on just one observation.

This cognitive bias was theorised by Thomdike in 1920 and later proved by Asch (1946) and Clifford (1975). Clifford demonstrated how people considered to be more attractive were often also deemed to be more intelligent as well despite the two factors having no correlation in reality. During his experiment, teachers were shown photos of unknown pupils and asked to make assumptions on several different elements of their characters (intelligence, likelihood of academic success, etc.). The results showed that when given photos of more “attractive” pupils, the teachers described them as more likely to be intelligent or successful than others. There was no basis for these presumptions other than the fact that the one “positive” characteristic they had to go on (in this case, the attractive physical appearance) led them to subconsciously attribute other positive characteristics to these pupils.

However, the Halo Effect also works inversely. The “Devil Effect” shows how we are also likely to judge people negatively based on one single negative attribute. For example, we may demonstrate a negative sentiment towards someone that we don’t even know simply due to the fact that they hang out with a crowd of people we don’t like, or inversely have a negative opinion of a whole group of people simply because one person we don’t like is included in it.

The Halo Effect also has huge significance for brands and businesses. For example, a brand that is well-known for having one particular quality product will find that all of its other products are also assumed to be of a similar quality even if this theory hasn’t been tested. Similarly, when promoting a certain item or service, the good publicity generated will be attributed to the brand as a whole so can have a much wider, more positive impact than a particular advertising campaign merited. In this way, certain marketing strategies use just one or two particular positive elements (such as a client testimony or a popular celebrity endorsement) to cast an overall positive light on their brand image.

Gaze Cueing is the way in which we pay particular attention to the gaze and line of sight of others when looking at a face, focusing in on this element and often finding our own gaze drawn by someone else’s.

Scientists have shown that the human gaze is an important social stimulus on which we learn to focus right from when we are born. As children, we utilise the gaze of our parents to learn about the world, read expressions, etc. In fact, eyes are a considerable source of information regarding emotions, intentions, beliefs and desires of others, as a lot of expressiveness is portrayed through the eyes. Studies have shown that 55% of information transmitted during a face to face conversation relies on visual contact. The eyes are a central factor in our social interactions and have an immense power over us: immediately attracting our attention amongst all facial features or other stimuli.

There are numerous communication and marketing techniques that make use of Gaze Cueing. For example, websites often use the human face (photos, etc.) in their adverts or on their homepage and are careful to place important elements (such as Call-to-Action buttons, etc.) within the gaze path of the model to help ensure that the website visitor has their gaze automatically drawn towards the desired elements of the page.

The Framing Effect is a cognitive bias that explains how we react differently to things depending on how they are presented to us. Being aware of and manipulating the way information is presented can highly influence how it is received. Framing something in a certain way – through the use of image, words, context, etc. – will shape assumptions and perceptions about it. Whether the positive gains or the negative losses are highlighted will make a big difference.

Generally, positive framing will spur people into action and encourage possible risk-taking whereas negative framing will lead people to inaction or cessation of something. Framing information negatively (loss-framed messaging) is widely used to try and scare people into better behaviour or into not doing something. The government and media use it regularly to shock us into not: smoking, drinking and driving, voting for an opponent, taking a risk with career or lifestyle, etc. It has widely been thought to be more motivating than positive framing because of the simple fact that it does shock and scare, meaning it will possibly stay with you for longer. However, recent studies done by O’Keefe & Jensen (2008) have shown that we actually react better to positive framing. Positive framing can lead to happier thoughts, more motivated actions and greater synergy with the message provider. We don’t like to be bullied by governments, chastised and told what we should or shouldn’t do. But perhaps if they instead highlighted all the positive outcomes of making a certain decision – say, rather than concentrating on the horror of lung cancer to encourage people to quit smoking, they highlighted how much money you’d save, how white your teeth would be and how much healthier and fitter you could become – then they might find a more positive reaction in return.

In advertising and marketing especially, it is important to frame your messages in the correct way. Generally it’s better to use positive framing, as you want your brand to be associated with positive, motivational feelings that lead people to act (buy your product, give to your charity, sign your subscription). Framing your messages in a positive light – pointing out all the benefits that could be gained – should help to encourage people to buy into the lifestyle you’re selling and also to give them positive thoughts associated with your brand. However, there may be instances where negative framing will have the desired effect (for example, a charity during crisis times may get a better reaction from detailing all the horrors of the crisis) so it is important to ensure that framing is carefully considered and correctly chosen.

The foot-in-the-door technique is the idea that it is more effective to start by asking people for something small, and then when they give it to you, you are in a better position to ask for something bigger. Indeed, Freedman and Fraser (1966) have shown that a small agreement creates a bond between the requester and the requestee. The person you ask acts according to the cognitive bias that they have to justify their agreement to themselves. Humans like to justify their decision-making so they will convince themselves that they accepted the first request for a reason and then feel obliged to act consistently with this reason by accepting a second and third request, and so on. The phrase “foot in the door” originated during the heyday of door-to-door salespersons that would place their foot in the way of a closing door. With their foot literally in the door, the potential customer would have to listen to the sales pitch and this would potentially give them their way in to a bigger sale.

Freedman and Fraser conducted many studies that demonstrated this cognitive bias. In one of them, they asked people to place either a small sign in their car window to promote safe driving, or a small sign in a window of their house about keeping California clean. About two weeks later, the same people were asked by a second person to put a large sign advocating safe driving or “keeping California clean” in their front garden. Many people who agreed to the first request also complied with the second, far more intrusive request.

Foot-in-the-door technique also works online for web marketing strategies. For example, you can ask for an email address (a small request that doesn’t cost anything or take too much time) and once the user has given this, they’re then much more likely to agree to complete a bigger, more important task (register online, sign up for a newsletter, make a purchase etc.).

The Focusing Effect is the way in which the human mind places too much emphasis on certain limited factors when making decisions. Instead of taking in to account all the many perhaps more important but less distinctive factors when evaluating something or making a choice, we only recognise and place value on a few mainstream or more sensationalised pieces of information. This causes an imbalance in judgement and often leads to misinformed evaluations.

In a study carried out by Schkade & Kahneman (1998) where people were asked whether Californians or Mid-Westerners led happier lives, people overwhelmingly assumed and stated that it was Californians. They were, of course, falling victim to the Focusing Effect as they were basing this decision on well-documented and perhaps even cliche ideals such as better weather, living by the sea, more relaxed, outdoor lifestyle, etc. However, in reality, this is not the case as there is no discernible difference between the happiness of residents in these two areas. By putting emphasis on a limited number of factors, other more important determinants of happiness were overlooked, such as crime rates and safety from natural disasters.

In the commercial arena, the Focusing Effect is often utilised as a selling technique. Knowing that people are in fact more likely to accept the merit of a certain product you are trying to sell if that merit is based on only a few well-chosen factors, means that web marketing strategies can be developed accordingly. Consumers are looking for products that they believe will better their lives in some way and are receptive to being informed of the positive and glamourised aspects of a product, event or service. Focusing on only a few key components of the product you are trying to sell, concentrating on the most widely recognisable or most distinctive features, is an effective way of converting the Focusing Effect in to an affective marketing tool.

Fear of Missing Out is the fear that people feel faced with the thought that they might miss out on a social occasion, new experience, profitable investment or other satisfying event. This fear of possible regret leads to a desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing, to feel that you are always in-the-know or “in touch”. This psychological principle is most notably evident in the way in which certain people become addicted to social media and their mobile phones, constantly checking them in order to see what others are doing and to be sure they are not missing out on something.

Psychologists explain the Fear of Missing Out by the social disadvantage we feel we have if we’re excluded from something. We always fear that others are having much more rewarding life experiences than us and feel compelled to constantly check whether “the grass is greener” and feel it necessary to try and “keep up with the Joneses”.

FOMO has several consequences on individuals’ behaviour: it can lead to saying yes to everything in order not to miss out on anything or, on the contrary, to having a hard time making any plans or decisions because we’re always worried something better might come along. In both cases, it can trigger negative emotions such as boredom, loneliness and frustration as it leads us to only see things in terms of “missed opportunities” rather than making the most of those things we do experience.

In the commercial world, FOMO can certainly be a factor in motivating consumers to buy. Brands are employing FOMO in advertising and marketing campaigns to make consumers specifically feel that they will be missing out on something if they don’t own their product. Momentary marketing, for example, uses transient social media platforms to target FOMO with flash sales and ephemeral content that offers short-term deals, which further incites customers to remain “on the pulse” and to make quicker purchases.

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was first looked at by Deci in 1975 and then later he studied this in more detail alongside Ryan in 1985 and 2002. They showed that motivation can be quantified according to the factors that provoke it. When motivation is induced by an external factor (reward, social pressure, approval of a third party, etc.) it’s an extrinsic motivation. Inversely, intrinsic motivation comes from an individual internal factor, driven by an individual interest or desire. For example, if someone exercises to clear their head and to relax, then it is due to intrinsic motivation. Whereas if they exercise simply to join a friend who asked them to go then the motivation is extrinsic.

Depending on the context, either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation can be more effective. Extrinsic motivation is often most effective when engaging someone to complete a simple task. However, when the task is more complicated and might require more in-depth thought and creativity, this type of motivation has been found to be a hindrance. This was clearly shown during Glucksberg’s experiment based on the famous cognitive test “The Candle Problem” created by Duncker in 1945. In this, people were shown in to a room where they were presented with a candle, a box of tacks and a box of matches. They were then asked to attach the candle to a cork board and light it whilst ensuring that none of the wax would fall on to the table below. The solution is to empty the tack box, put the candle inside, use the tacks to attach the box to the cork board then use the matches to light the candle. Tests on this have overwhelmingly proven that when the person is shown the tacks already outside of their box they generally come to the right solution relatively easily, whereas when the tacks are inside their box, more lateral thinking and creativity is required. The interesting point in Glucksberg’s experiment though was the difference that adding an extrinsic motivation to these two test groups made. Participants were split in to two groups: Group A were simply asked to complete the task as quickly as possible whilst Group B was offered the following financial reward: the person who solved it most quickly would receive $150 and others who finished in the top 25% of quickest times would receive $40.

Within these 2 groups, half were shown the more simple scenario where the tacks were already outside the box and the other half the more complex scenario. Results showed that in the more simple scenario, it was in fact Group B who performed the best as the extrinsic motivational tool of the financial reward was very effective for this simpler task. However, in the more complex scenario the results were reversed as Group B found the time pressure and potential financial reward to actually limit their ability to think creatively and find the solution and it was Group A in this case, with nothing other than their own intrinsic motivation, who performed the best.

This principle has many implications for persuasive strategies. For web marketing, it is important to determine which type of motivation will be the most effective in persuading your visitors to complete an action (clicking a Call-to-Action for example). If the requested task is simple enough then adding some kind of incentive or other form of extrinsic motivation could help to increase conversions. If the task is more complex though or asks for a higher level of attention and creativity, it is better to persuade customers through highlighting their own personal interests (autonomy, personal accomplishment, etc.).

The Endowment Effect is the way in which people attribute a greater value to something when it is already in their possession. This is explained by the fact that our manner of evaluating items changes once we have them because we become psychologically attached and accustomed to having them and no longer want to be without them. Therefore they become more valuable in our eyes than those things that we don’t own. This can lead to someone being willing to pay more to keep something they already own than they would be to buy something new, or to being particularly reticent to throw something away.

Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler (1990) proved the Endowment Effect with the following experiment: they divided some students in to three groups, Group A were given mugs, Group B chocolate bars, and Group C weren’t given anything but had to say whether they would have preferred a mug or a chocolate bar. Afterwards, Groups A and B were asked if they wanted to swap over their respective “gifts”. Whilst Group C didn’t appear to have a particular preference for one or the other of these “gifts” (with 56% having chosen a mug, 44% a bar of chocolate), the other two groups were unwilling to exchange their items, having already attributed a value to them. Whilst Group C hadn’t attached any real value to either item and would have been happy to have either, 89% of Group A wanted to keep their mug and 90% of Group B wanted to keep their chocolate bar. This clearly shows how once a human is in possession of an item (whether it be a mug, a chocolate bar, or something else entirely), a superior value is attributed to that thing than something that isn’t in their possession.

The Endowment Effect is utilised in certain sales and marketing techniques such as “free trials”, which are an effective way of allowing a customer to become accustomed to a product in the hopes that once their free trial has ended they will already have become attached to the product, attributing the value of ownership to it, and no longer want to be without it.

The Default Effect was most notably studied by Johnson, Hershey, Meszaros & Kunreuther (1993) and reveals how the fact of having a “default choice” available influences our decisions. Amongst all the options given to us when we need to make a choice, the default choice is the one that doesn’t require us to actually make any active decision as it has already been chosen for us. For example, when we install software on our computer, we’re offered a default installation option; we only need continue with the installation in a passive manner with all the functions chosen for us and this is the overwhelming (non-) choice made. The Default Effect is therefore the way in which any default option on offer is most likely to be chosen over anything else and so offering up a default option gives us a way of influencing people’s decisions.

Scientists believe this comes down to multiple reasons. Firstly, opting for a passive choice requires the least amount of thought process whereas comparing and weighing up different options can mean a lot of time spent evaluating so, especially when we are having a hard time deliberating between several similar options, choosing the default option requires the least mental effort. This allows us to reduce the already large number of choices we face every day and therefore concentrate on making decisions when it’s really important.

We’re also prone to choosing default options as we consider them to be recommendations. In the case of the computer software installation, certain functional choices we’d have to make might seem too technical or complicated for us so we prefer to simply follow the default option that we presume has been set up by someone who knows more than we do or we presume that it’s the default option because it is comprised of the settings most regularly chosen and will therefore probably serve our needs too.

Looking at default choices can also reveal how often we are likely to accept a choice that has happened by default without question whereas if we were asked to actively consider the decision and make a more thoughtful and informed choice we might not agree. For example, scientific studies carried out regarding the relation of the Default Effect on organ donation found that there are less donors in countries where consent is not given by default. If you are simply put on the organ donor list by default because you haven’t actively expressed that you do not wish to be one then you probably would never even really consider this. Whereas if you were asked to actively give your consent then you would be more prone to start thinking about it in detail and might become more emotionally involved and less likely to agree.

In web marketing, the Default Effect can come in to play whenever your customer needs to make a decision, whether that be about signing up to your newsletter, or choosing a product or method of delivery etc. Offering a default option when there is a choice you would rather they make (i. e. making sure that boxes to opt people in to receive your offers etc. are always pre-ticked) will increase the likelihood that your visitors will indeed make the choice you’re hoping for.