Author Archives: Mallory

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 4, 2015

Posted under

Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

Papa Don’t Preach: Josh Duggar and the Psychological Consequences of Christian Patriarchy (Part 3)

150603-news-duggar-interview

Image from TVGuide.com

Last night’s Kelly File interview with the Duggars confirmed many of the details about the Duggar scandal. Namely, Josh Duggar informed his parents of his behavior after he had victimized two of his sisters, and the Duggars did not remove him from their home until there were two additional incidents, involving three more girls. The interview was very Josh-focused, and when Kelly asked how Jim Bob felt about his daughters being molested, specifically as the father of those girls, again he brought it back to Josh immediately, saying, “I was so thankful though…that Josh came and told us.” That brings me to some of the most difficult issues associated with Christian Patriarchy: Sexism and Privilege. (You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here).

5) Sexism- It is impossible to discuss these extreme religious movements without noting the marginalization of women. From constant pregnancy to assertions that men are more moral than women, many of the practices of the Christian Patriarchy movement are meant to keep women “in their place.” It’s also clear that women have little say in what happens to them in these male-dominated environments. The Duggars allowed Josh to live in the same home as several of his victims and rather than offering him psychological counseling, they sent him to Little Rock to remodel someone’s house. Living in a culture of sexism can be incredibly damaging to the psyche of young women, causing them to have lower levels of achievement, which is related to a lot of negative consequences, including poor mental and physical health.1,2

Benevolent sexism is one culprit for the position of women in Christian Patriarchy. Benevolent sexism is the belief that women need to be offered protection from men, and women often come to endorse this chivalrous ideology as well.3 This type of sexism endorses gender inequality and traditional gender roles.3 Hostile sexism on the other hand, refers to overtly antagonistic feelings about women, including views that women try to influence men with their sexuality.3 Both amounts of benevolent and hostile sexism predict women’s position in society across cultures.4 Since Christian Patriarchy affirms that women can “defraud” men with revealing clothing, and asserts that men must take care of women, combining both hostile and benevolent sexism, it results in something called ambivalent sexism.3 There’s also evidence that benevolent sexism increases system justification, or endorsement of the status quo, regardless of fairness.5 The type of socialization in Christian Patriarchy that focuses on very specific sex-roles for their children is known to contribute to issues related to sexism.6 In fact, there is evidence that men who are sexist are more likely to stereotype women, essentially seeing women in traditional roles as Madonnas and women in non-traditional roles as whores.7

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that men are not more virtuous than women. The FBI estimated that over 12.4 million arrests were made in the US in 2011, and that 74.1% of those arrested were men. According to the DOJ, 95% of those arrested for sexual offenses are male. In fact, sometimes men make worse choices than women and act less responsibly. For instance, men are far more likely to die in fatal car crashes than women, with men accounting for about 70% of motor vehicle-related deaths. None of this is to say that women are better decision makers than men, but I think we can all agree that men and women both bring something to the head of the table.

6) Privilege- The Christian Patriarchy movement is predictably full of male privilege. Codifying a system where men reign supreme allows men to justify their superior position. While men often acknowledge that women are at a disadvantage, they are far less likely to admit that they are benefiting from male privilege.8 Part of the issue surrounding privilege is that people who are privileged are meant to remain unaware of the nature of that privilege, and how it affects others.8 Educating people about privilege has been shown to improve attitudes and decrease prejudice toward women.9 Which is good, since male privilege can be so powerful that it often introduces itself as an issue in family therapy.10 Since it is such an issue in families that don’t practice Christian Patriarchy, it’s obvious that these issues may be even more magnified when this privilege is purposely afforded to men.

Male privilege is bad for women, plain and simple. Some researchers assert that male privilege is the reason that crimes that affect mainly women, like stalking or sexual harassment, are still under acknowledged in society.11 Male privilege also often leads to favorable legal outcomes for men in domestic violence situations, downplaying violence against women while people go to jail for far lesser crimes.12 This legal advantage only serves to solidify and extend male privilege. We even see female athletes often delegated to second-class, as professional sports have traditionally been dominated by men.13 There are many ways in which being male affords one advantages that females don’t have.

However, people can be privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others. For instance, many people fail to acknowledge their white privilege because they also have an unprivileged status, due to gender, sexual orientation, wealth or status. For instance, I may not have male privilege, but I still enjoy white privilege, something that minority women cannot claim. Similarly, black men enjoy some aspects of male privilege, but they are disadvantaged by white privilege.

Privilege is incredibly complex, but it is important to acknowledge how privilege puts us in certain positions or grants us certain advantages. Specifically, in the Duggar’s case, male privilege allowed Josh Duggar to feel that he could violate young girl’s bodies and allowed Jim Bob Duggar to believe that instituting his own “safeguards” would end the behavior, and white privilege allowed the Duggars to avoid any legal consequences of these actions. Even now, the Duggars have not been charged with obstructing justice or visited by Child and Protective Services, and Josh Duggar has never been charged with any sex crimes. The fact that Josh Duggar has used his position to marginalize others, especially the gay community, shows that he is largely unaware of how his privilege has helped him to avoid legal consequences, and has helped him retain some support in the court of public opinion. It is hard to imagine the same legal and public response to the same transgressions in a minority family.

We have explored various psychological findings that may have been behind Josh Duggar’s actions. The constant refrain of “it’s more common than you think” and “the girls didn’t even know” from the Duggar camp goes to show how marginalized women are in Christian Patriarchy. Going forward, it would help to focus less on Josh Duggar’s specific actions, and more on the culture that molded him into someone who felt that he could violate women’s bodies, as long as he told his dad after.

NOTE: Jen wrote a great article on privilege and the Fundamental Attribution Error last year that you can read here. Also, Peggy McIntosh wrote a very famous piece about unpacking the backpack of privilege that everyone should read, especially those who are confused about ways in which they are privileged.

  1. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 512-515.
  1. Willis, S., & Kenway, J. (1986). On overcoming sexism in schooling: To marginalize or mainstream. Australian Journal of Education, 30(2), 132-149.
  1. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109.
  1. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 763.
  1. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 498.
  1. O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist.
  1. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1323-1334.
  1. McIntosh, P. (2003). White privilege and male privilege. Privilege: A reader, 147-160.
  1. Case, K. A. (2007). Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: An evaluation of diversity courses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 426-435.
  1. Vecchio, D. D. (1998). Dismantaling White male privilege within family therapy.
  1. Wildman, S. M. (2000). Ending Male Privilege: Beyond the Reasonable Woman.
  1. Johnson, J. R. (2002). Privileged Justice Under Law: Reinforcement of Male Privilege by the Federal Judiciary Through the Lens of the Violence Against Women Act and US v. Morrison. Santa Clara L. Rev., 43, 1399.
  1. Messner, M. A. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of sport journal, 5(3), 197-211.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 1, 2015

Posted under

Psych

Comments

1 Comment

Papa Don’t Preach: Josh Duggar and the Psychological Consequences of Christian Patriarchy (Part 2)

3ydhWvtP

Image from Twitter

Over a week ago, allegations were confirmed that Josh Duggar sexually assaulted 5 underage women while still a minor himself. While his personal actions are deplorable and inexcusable, his upbringing as a member of the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements likely had an impact on his behavior. At SocialPsyQ we’re exploring the possible psychological forces that may have helped to motivate these crimes and others like them. If you missed part 1, you can read it here.

In part 2 of our analysis of the Duggar scandal, we’ll discuss Groupthink and Confirmation Bias.

3) Groupthink- Groupthink can help to explain many a disaster, from the decision to launch the Challenger to the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion. Groupthink is a phenomenon whereby people in a group are motivated to maintain group harmony by isolating themselves from outside influences and ignoring unpopular opinions.1 The problem is that this often leads to bad decisions, since the decision-makers don’t have all of the information and have not considered all of the alternatives. There are several types of situations that can make groups vulnerable to groupthink. For instance, there’s collective avoidance, where all members of a group act defensively to prevent failure, and there’s collective overoptimism, which is marked by overconfidence in achieving success.2 Either or both of these types of situations could be at play in Christian Patriarchy, as the group acts to avoid failing to instill an appreciation of their religious beliefs in their children, and they are convinced that their brand of Christianity will lead to successfully accomplishing this.

Groupthink is definitely at work in extreme religious movements or cults where a group of people comes to advocate certain practices or beliefs, regardless of their actual merit or social acceptability. For instance, beliefs in the Christian Patriarchy movement that women belong in the home and need a male authority to remain pure are fairly outmoded, but being surrounded by a large group of people with these same beliefs normalizes them, and discourages dissenters from speaking up. Researchers have found that contrary to popular opinion, we aren’t most strongly influenced by close others like friends, but by people who we identify with as part of the same social group.3 So, for the Duggars, these influencers are likely fellow members of their church, and the leaders of the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements.

The major antecedents of groupthink are: 1) The existence of a cohesive group, 2) The expression of a preference from a respected leader, and 3) Insulation from useful outside opinions that should be considered.4 There are also several symptoms of groupthink. Some important ones that may have played a role here are: Morality-Where groups come to believe that their opinion is the morally superior one, Stereotyped Views of Others-Where group members have simplified views of people with opposing positions, Pressure on Dissent-Where group members pressure people who question the majority opinion, Self-Censorship-Where people who disagree with the majority feel they cannot speak up, Illusion of Unanimity-Where people assume that those group members who don’t speak up agree with the majority position, and Mindguarding-Where specific group members act to shield the group from outside information that is contrary to group beliefs.4 It is easy to tell that almost all of the symptoms of groupthink are at play in these extreme religious movements. These symptoms may help to explain why women also adhere to Christian Patriarchy, even though it seems obvious that it is not in their best interests. Sadly, Groupthink discourages people from speaking up, and may have played a role in the cover-up of Duggar’s abuse, as well.

4) Confirmation bias-We’ve discussed this on SocialPsyQ before, but confirmation bias seems to underlie many of the actions of these extremely religious people. Confirmation bias occurs when someone specifically seeks evidence or interprets information in such a way that it confirms their already existing beliefs.5 Confirmation bias can even operate in science, when researchers design their studies or interpret their data in such a way that it confirms their hypothesis.6 But, of course, laypeople do this as well with their own ideas about the world.

For instance, Fox News often presents news in a different way than other news outlets. If Fox News presents information that is more in line with your already existing beliefs, you are more likely to listen to that news station than one that calls your beliefs into question. People who are more committed to their ideas, or have just been reminded of their strong beliefs, are more likely to exhibit confirmation bias than individuals who are not.7 That’s not to say that only some people show confirmation bias, it just means that people may show this bias in different areas. Specifically, those areas in which their beliefs are the strongest. It’s no coincidence that the Duggars sought out some extremist religious homeschooling materials for their children that are in line with their own extremist beliefs, or that they only associate with other families that share their beliefs. It is simply an instance of confirmation bias.

It is clear that a religious group that is headed by influential male authorities could lead to the various symptoms of groupthink and encourage the Duggars to handle their son’s crimes in house, as well as to have put Josh Duggar in a position where he did not feel that he could communicate his deviant thoughts and feelings with his religious parents. In addition, confirmation bias helped to keep the Duggars in the dark. As they acted to keep their kids safe from the “evils” of the world with their brand of authoritarian parenting, they invited the devil right in the front door.

Come back on Thursday for the conclusion of the Duggar scandal series!

NOTE: I would be remiss to not mention that some research has called the Groupthink theory into question, and that scientific results from lab studies do not always replicate all of the antecedents and results proposed by Janis and colleagues. While the laboratory evidence does not always support all of the tenants of the theory, it is obvious that this process plays out in some form based on the many real-life examples that scientists invoke to discuss the theory, such as launching the Challenger in less than ideal conditions, despite warnings from the engineers about the temperature.8

  1. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.
  1. Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 73(2), 116-141.
  1. Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), 323-341.
  1. Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539-550.
  1. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175.
  1. Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). 4 Confirmation bias. Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory, 79.
  1. Munro, G. D., & Stansbury, J. A. (2009). The dark side of self-affirmation: Confirmation bias and illusory correlation in response to threatening information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
  1. Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 73(2), 105-115.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

May 29, 2015

Posted under

Psych

Comments

2 Comments

Papa Don’t Preach: Josh Duggar and the Psychological Consequences of Christian Patriarchy (Part 1)

duggarfamily.com

Image from the Duggar Family

On May 19, 2015, InTouch Weekly magazine published an article alleging sexual abuse within the Duggar family, the stars of the TLC show 19 Kids and Counting. The accusations detailed unwanted and unsolicited sexual touching between their eldest son Josh and 5 young girls, including 4 of his younger sisters, while he was still a minor. Duggar has confirmed the accusations, and he, his wife and his parents have all issued statements about the abuse. While the commentary from the Duggar camp seems to revolve around repentance and redemption, the police report, taken 3 years after the incidents, reveals that the Duggars likely acted to protect their son from the legal consequences of his actions.

The Duggars are considered some of the most influential members of the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements, and are well known among conservative circles. The Quiverfull movement encourages parents to put their family planning “in God’s hands,” while the Christian Patriarchy movement asserts that men are the moral and spiritual heads of the household. While these beliefs have long sparked questions about the judgment of the members of these movements, these recent revelations have brought to light even more problematic issues, like the encouragement of victim blaming in handling sexual abuse included in a popular Christian homeschooling program from the Advanced Training Institute. While it may be difficult for many of us to understand what drives these extreme religious movements, there are definitely psychological forces at work here.

We’re going to unpack this scandal, SocialPsyQ style, in a series of 3 posts. In the first post, we will consider the role of obedience and authority.

1) Obedience- A cornerstone of Christian Patriarchy parenting is total obedience to parental demands. Many practices, including blanket training, are essentially just a repurposing of operant conditioning, where repeated consequences or rewards for a certain behavior lead to learned responses.1 In blanket training, the parent puts an infant or small child on a blanket, and tells it not to move. If the infant moves off of the blanket, they receive some form of corporal punishment and are put back on the blanket. This happens until the baby does not leave the blanket. While this may appear to be obedience, this is actually a conditioned fear response. The baby obeys the parent for fear of physical abuse, not because it has learned that obeying mom is better than not. There are no studies that suggest that this kind of will-bending is a good parenting practice.

Evidence from psychology research overwhelmingly endorses attachment parenting, a kind of parenting where the parent acts as a trusted, secure base from which the infant can explore the environment.2,3,4,5 One’s childhood attachment to parents can have long-reaching consequences, affecting the security of a child’s future relationships, their mental health and their ability to regulate their emotions.6,7,8 Practices like blanket training discourage curiosity and may lead to insecure attachments with caregivers. The research suggests that a warm and supportive environment is by far the best for a child’s development into an autonomous person, and that it is the best way to form positive relationships with caregivers. Total obedience is not for a child’s developmental benefit, it is for the adult who wants their child to obey.

2) Authority- In social psychology, Stanley Milgram famously showed that requests from authorities can cause people to do unthinkable things in the name of obedience, namely, to administer increasing levels of electric shock to someone who eventually appears to be in serious pain, or in need of medical attention.9,10 Over 60% of participants were willing to shock the other person up to the highest level of shock available at the behest of the experimenter, even when it was marked to show how dangerous it was and even after the other participant had repeatedly indicated that they should stop.* Phillip Zimbardo also demonstrated, via the Stanford Prison Experiment, that imbuing college students with the authority of a prison guard led them to abuse the “prisoners”, even though all participants knew this was a contrived psychological experiment.11,12 The effect was so intense that Zimbardo himself was even effected by his role as the “warden”, allowing the abuse of the prisoners. The experiment was shut down after only 6 days.

Participants from the Milgram Obedience experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment were shocked by their own behavior, and experienced distress from their involvement in the experiments. It’s easy to imagine how a constant authoritarian environment in the home could lead to very real consequences for children, when even fully grown adults can be disturbed by their obedience, even if just for the duration of a psychology experiment.

With Christian Patriarchy encouraging parents and men to assert their authority over children and women with a goal of total obedience, it seems clear that this is not a healthy environment for child development. It is well known that authoritarian parenting, where the parent strictly controls a child, often leads to unintended consequences, like acting out, and it certainly seems to have contributed to an environment in the Duggar home that both demonized sexuality, and gave Josh Duggar an opportunity to assault young girls against their will.13 Perhaps the Duggars could use a little SocialPsyQ?

Stay tuned for Part 2 on Monday, June 1st!

*The Milgram experiments used a recording or a confederate (an experimenter posing as a participant) to make participants believe that they were shocking another person in a different room, but they actually were not. No one was physically injured in these experiments and there was no evidence of lasting psychological consequences for participation.

NOTE: This article deals with the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements specifically, and does not assert that all Christians believe these things or raise their children these ways.

  1. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503.
  1. Sears, W., & Sears, M. (2001). The attachment parenting book: A commonsense guide to understanding and nurturing your baby. Little, Brown.
  1. Granju, K. A., & Kennedy, B. (1999). Attachment parenting: Instinctive care for your baby and young child. Simon and Schuster.
  1. Wearden, A., Peters, I., Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Liversidge, T. (2008). Adult attachment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and others. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1246-1257.
  1. Bowlby, J. (2005). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory (Vol. 393). Taylor & Francis.
  1. Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant mental health journal, 22(1-2), 7-66.
  1. Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: a twenty‐year longitudinal study. Child development, 71(3), 684-689.
  1. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 66-104.
  1. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.
  1. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57-76.
  1. Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of US prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53(7), 709.
  1. Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Curtis Banks, W., & Jaffe, D. (1972). Stanford prison experiment: a simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Incorporated.
  2. Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of adolescence, 23(2), 205-222.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 1, 2015

Posted under

Psych in Sum

Comments

10 Comments

Super Bowl Sunday: The Social Psych Perspective

Screen Shot 2015-02-01 at 2.45.36 PM

Image from AZSuperbowl

About a third to a half of America’s population tunes in to the Super Bowl every year. That may not seem surprising, but the wildly popular American Idol only pulled in about 30 million viewers in its best years. A huge amount to be sure, but it pales in comparison to the Super Bowl’s 110 million (give or take).* Social psychologists may not be surprised about the popularity of the Super Bowl, given our tendency to invest ourselves deeply in sports.

In a famous study at Ohio State University, Robert Cialdini and colleagues found that students wore OSU clothing more following a win than after a loss.1 They also noticed that people were more likely to use “we” language (i.e. “we won”) when the team performed well, and were more likely to use “they” language when the team performed poorly (i.e. “they lost”).1 This phenomenon is often referred to as Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing) and Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORFing).2 However, there is some evidence that die-hard fans may not engage in CORFing, suggesting they have more dedication to the team.3

So enjoy those wings, call some couch plays and no matter the outcome (***cough, cough*** Patriots win ***cough, cough***), don’t be a fair-weather fan!

*EDIT-on a good year! These stats do include worldview viewership, but worldwide viewership is notoriously low

  1. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, R. J., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34, 366-375.
  1. Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 626-631.
  1. Sloan, L. R. (1979). “The function and impact of sports for fans: A review of theory and contemporary research.” Pp.219-262 in J. H. Goldstein (00.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 25, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 10

Screen Shot 2014-12-25 at 1.46.01 AM

Image from PsyBlog

In our 10th and final installment, I want to wrap up our discussion by reviewing a topic near and dear to my heart: automaticity. Automaticity in the consumer environment refers to actions that occur without thought, and often refers to the process of priming, which is activating a concept without conscious awareness. Priming is quite common, and advertisers often depend on the automatic effects of priming in their advertising. For instance, product placements in TV shows or movies are meant to be subtle while activating a desire for the product, or creating associations between the product and something you enjoy (i.e. the show or movie). Such methods are extremely effective; Tom Cruise’s Ray-Bans in Risky Business sold 360,000 pairs of the unpopular sunglasses and The Italian Job put Mini Coopers on the map, boosting sales by 22%.

You may wonder how this is nonconscious, since you obviously notice these items are present in the movies. However, priming actually refers to a 3 part process, including awareness of the environmental factors (seeing the Ray-Bans in the movie), the process of activating the concept in the brain (the associations or desires created by seeing the Ray-Bans on Tom Cruise) and the outcome (actually buying the Ray-Bans, or changing your impression of the product).1 For the most part, we are not aware of every part of this process when we have been primed.1 But, as demonstrated by the sales statistics that result from product placement, priming is a highly effective marketing technique.

One way that brands can influence consumers outside of conscious awareness is by priming concepts related to the brand’s personality. For instance, a study by a group of Duke researchers revealed that priming participants with Apple logos made them significantly more creative on a subsequent task than participants who were primed with IBM logos.2 These brand associations are so strong it even works when you prime someone with a logo that is subliminal (it’s presented so fast it can’t be seen even if you are looking at it directly).3 However, in real life, most primes are supraliminal (you can see them, but you don’t realize their impact on your thoughts and behavior).3

Other people can also prime us, as we discussed in the Dasani priming study reviewed in our day 3 post. As in that study, behavioral mimicry can be the outcome of experiencing a prime. Behavioral mimicry occurs when one person behaves in the same way as another person without realizing it. This happens when you notice you are sitting the same way as another person, or you take on an accent when talking with someone from another place. Within the consumer realm, this can happen when you make the same choices as other consumers. One study found that watching another participant eat only goldfish crackers or animal crackers encouraged participants to eat the same snack and ignore the other option when both were provided.4

Automaticity is always at work in the consumer realm, but, for the most part, consumers are unaware of these influences and behaviors. Automatic processes like priming lead consumers to make decisions that are influenced by other consumers and marketing appeals. Many of the topics we have discussed during this series operate automatically, from forming impressions of products to being influenced by the behavior of early adopters. As always, an educated consumer is a savvy consumer!

Happy Holidays, y’all! Thanks for reading and see you in 2015!

Note: You may notice how often I cited Tanya Chartrand in this post. She is one of the foremost authorities on priming and automaticity, as well as a professor at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke. You can find more information on her research at her faculty page.

  1. Chartrand, T. L. (2005). The role of conscious awareness in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 203-210.
  2. Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: how apple makes you “think different”. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 21-35.
  3. Bargh, J. A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 280-285.
  4. Tanner, R. J., Ferraro, R., Chartrand, T. L., Bettman, J. R., & Van Baaren, R. (2008). Of chameleons and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 754-766.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 24, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 9

Screen Shot 2014-12-24 at 12.58.04 PM

Image from Venture Beat

It may not be surprising, given yesterday’s topic, that brand loyalty is related to brand relationships. Brand loyalty is exactly what it sounds like; it is forming a long-term and largely exclusive relationship with a brand. Companies love brand loyalists because most of a company’s sales tend to come from a small portion of their customers. This is something known as the Pareto principle (or the 80/20 rule), where 80% of revenue is generated by only 20% of customers.1 Because repeat customers are so vital to the success of a business, marketers continually try to build and maintain this kind of loyalty.

You can see how loyalty may be involved in many of the topics we’ve discussed. Brand loyalists are more likely to engage in brand communities, they’re less likely to be influenced by the choices of others in product categories in which they are brand loyal and they tend to generate word of mouth about those brands. Some researchers contend that brand loyalty is part and parcel of brand relationships, and it certainly appears to impact many aspects of a consumer’s marketplace experience.2 In fact, there are many parallels between brand loyalty and the concept of loyalty between two people. For instance, people need to trust brands before they can develop brand loyalty.3 We also come to trust brands by getting to know them over time, often through their brand characteristics and corporate behavior. But other factors like brand performance can also contribute to brand loyalty, which can be positive or negative.4 If a product always performs well, there is little reason for a loyal customer to seek other services, while the opposite is true if it performs inconsistently.4

One of the ways that marketers attempt to harness the power of brand loyalty is through loyalty programs. Loyalty programs are rather infamous for costing companies a lot of money for little return. And this makes some logical sense, as customers that are already purchasing a lot may have no need to purchase more often, or the program itself may not be motivating sales. Research has found that successful loyalty programs generally have 3 main characteristics: 1) They relate to high involvement products, 2) They increase the value of the service, and 3) They maximize motivation for the next purchase.5 Companies whose loyalty programs don’t reflect these values are far less successful than those whose programs are more motivating for the customer.

Brand relationships, and the loyalty that may exist within these relationships, are a part of our lives as consumers. When we become brand loyal, we may be champions for a product, building a company’s customer base by spreading the word to friends and family. We may even feel like amateur guerilla marketers. But we should always be aware that loyalty programs are not rewards for consumers, they’re marketing tactics for companies.

  1. Koch, R. (2011). The 80/20 principle: the secret to achieving more with less. Random House LLC.
  2. Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(5), 451-472.
  3. Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341-370.
  4. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
  5. Dowling, G. R., & Uncles, M. (1997). Do customer loyalty programs really work?. Research Brief, 1.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 23, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 8

Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 11.26.46 AM

Image from BostInno

Now that we know that brands have human characteristics, like personality, let’s talk about how we form relationships with brands. When I was little, my mother always used Aunt Jemima’s pancake mix. Now that I buy my own groceries (bummer), I always buy the same, because I’ve had a long relationship with the Aunt Jemima brand. It also makes delicious pancakes, but I digress. Relationships with brands can be significant for many reasons. The reason I just mentioned is related to nostalgia, or family ties, but you can also imagine relationships with brands being significant because they remind you of certain friends, or they make you feel good. Any way you slice it, maintaining relationships with customers is big business.

Customer relationship management, or CRM, has become key to managing a business. CRM is a way that a company can track an individual customer’s information, preferences and habits in such a way that the company can more effectively market to the individual, as well as retain him or her for future business. But before we form a relationship with a brand, we need to have a good idea of its identity. A company’s identity is composed of consumer perceptions and beliefs about company characteristics, consumer affective responses to the company and impressions of the company’s values.1

While there is a great deal of research on brand relationships, we are going to focus on a case study of compromised brand relationships: American Apparel. This year, Dov Charney, founder and former CEO of American Apparel was fired not once, but twice. For the fashion-obsessed among us, Charney’s bad behavior has long been discussed in relation with American Apparel and their sexualized advertising. In fact, Dov Charney’s sexual misconduct was first reported in 2004, when Charney engaged in some self-satisfaction during an interview with a female reporter. Since then, Charney has been sued by former employees for sexual harassment or misconduct no less than 7 times.

So why fire him now, 10 years after the first reports? Well, a lot of industry insiders think it’s because Charney finally ruined American Apparel’s relationship with its customers. Charney’s behavior was so well-publicized, and led to so much public disdain, that many people transferred these feelings about Charney to feelings about American Apparel. He compromised the brand’s identity by infusing it too much with his own, making it so that shoppers could not help but think about unwanted advances when they were supposed to be shopping for crop tops. And American Apparel’s board was probably right, because American Apparel was hemorrhaging money at the end of 2013, with a total loss of $106 million, a sign of a declining customer base.

Brand relationships are incredibly important, and many of the things we’ve discussed, like brand communities or brand personalities, work to build and support relationships with consumers. Think about the brands you buy, and the way you feel about them. It may surprise you that they’re more than just products, they’re old friends.

  1. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 22, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 7

Brands themselves can take on human characteristics. We often discuss brands and companies with words like, “caring,” “corrupt,” “smart,” or “innovative.” Commercials and advertising work to solidify or disabuse customers of these impressions, using imagery and language to massage customer opinions. And it works! Let’s see how easy it is to choose the correct adjective to describe a company.

Which of these brands is…1) Sophisticated, 2) Competent, 3) Active, 4) Laid-back?*Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 10.46.43 AM

 

You probably knew right away if you have any experience with these brands or their advertising (or you can find the answers at the bottom of this page). This quiz deals with something called brand personality, which is much like a person’s personality. In personality psychology, human personalities revolve around the so-called Big 5: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.1 The vast majority of human characteristics can be explained with some version of these 5 traits. But these same 5 factors do not hold for brands.2

Jennifer Aaker identified 5 different characteristics that define brand personality: Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness.3 It is fairly easy to think of examples of these types of brands. Hallmark makes money off of their sincerity, and Mountain Dew still exists because of its ruggedness. But much like human personality, there are cross-cultural differences in which traits are most prized in brands. For instance, sincerity is appreciated in the US, Japan and Spain, while ruggedness is appreciated more in the US than in other countries.4

Brand personalities affect us in many ways. They drive our brand impressions, they form our brand evaluations and they contribute to our brand relationships. Marketers can harness this information to sell us goods. So, the next time that Publix commercial makes you cry, just remember that Publix is sincere and competent, and they want you to know it.

* Answers: A-1, B-3, C-4, D-2

  1. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
  2. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: how to make the metaphor fit?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377-395.
  3. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
  4. Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 21, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 6

Screen Shot 2014-12-21 at 12.10.52 PM

Image from Lisa Larter

It’s day 6 in our crash course of consumer psychology, and we’ve gotten into a lot of great work on social influence and contagion. Until now, we’ve ignored some inherently social marketplace phenomena: word of mouth advertising and customer reviews. These days, customer reviews and review sites like Yelp help consumers make purchasing decisions, or select products and services better suited to their needs. Customer reviews are supported by the concept of word of mouth, or hearing about something from someone else.

Word of mouth is powerful for several reasons. We know from social psychology that other people are often swayed by expertise or experience, and people writing product or service reviews have generally used the product or service.1 We are also persuaded more often by those familiar to us than by unfamiliar people, something researchers have dubbed “tie strength.”2 But as we’ve reviewed in past articles, complete strangers’ product choices can influence us also, so word of mouth can come from a large range of sources. And, boy, is it influential!

Research has shown that this product feedback we receive from others has both short and long-term consequences, with word of mouth affecting future decisions, as well as those made in the moment.3 In fact, researchers have found that word of mouth advertising has longer carryover effects and higher response elasticities than traditional marketing efforts.4 Basically, this means that word of mouth is more influential over time, and yields more customers per effort, than traditional marketing. As you can see, word of mouth is very desirable for businesses, and it works better on us as consumers.

Customer reviews of products or services are one expression of this type of word of mouth feedback. While browsing merchandise, you can get educated opinions and specifics about the product, as well as warnings or issues with service. Unsurprisingly, these reviews often play a role in our product decisions. For instance, book sales on Amazon and Barnes and Noble online bookstores are directly related to both the number and type of positive reviews left by other customers.5 In another study, researchers found that participants were about 20% more likely to choose recommended products than non-recommended products.6 But, luckily for companies, brand loyalty moderates the effect of product reviews, such that consumers are less likely to be swayed by reviews when they already like a brand or product.7

It’s been a wonderful journey through social influence within the consumer realm. Tomorrow, we’re turning to conceptualizations of brands as people. So, obviously, you won’t want to miss that 😉

  1. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.
  2. Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.
  3. Bone, P. F. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 213-223.
  4. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90-102.
  5. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345-354.
  6. Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159-169.
  7. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203-214.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 20, 2014

Posted under

Consumer Psych

Comments

Leave a comment

10 Days of Christmas…Consumerism: Day 5

It’s the season of love, laughter and seeing everyone you’ve ever met, so let’s talk about social norms. Norms refer to what is “normal,” or what is commonly done or preferred by others. Norms are always at work during our shopping experiences, from the way the sales associate treats you in a friendly way, to the way that you behave while browsing merchandise. And, they’re also at work when we interact with one another in the marketplace, from allowing someone with one item to pass you in line, to helping a child get something off of a high shelf. Basically, there are two kinds of norms: injunctive and descriptive. Injunctive norms refer to what ought to be done, or what is most highly approved by other people.1 These are things like giving to charity or volunteering time. Descriptive norms, however, are essentially descriptions of what others are doing in a given situation.1 These are things like, “75% of people give to the Red Cross following a natural disaster.” Norms are incredibly powerful, and they regulate our behavior in many ways. The consumer domain is no different.

Do you ever wonder why you tip in restaurants even though you don’t want to? It’s because of social norms. Tipping in restaurants nets $26 billion a year in the United States, but it’s not from the goodness of people’s hearts.2 It’s because they don’t want to look cheap in front of their friends, or because everyone else does it.2 This helps to explain why tipping is common in the US, but not in other countries. In the US, it is a social norm, and in other countries it isn’t.*

What other people are doing affects our behavior in the marketplace in other ways, as well. For instance, people are more likely to impulse buy when the practice is seen as normative within their community.3 So, essentially, bad behavior flies if other people are doing it. But marketers can harness the power of these same social norms to reach desired outcomes. In a famous study about hotel water conservation, a group of researchers found that adding a descriptive norm about how often other hotel guests reuse their towels to a statement about water conservation increased participation in the towel reuse program by almost 10%.4

So, to answer the age-old question, would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it? Science suggests you very well might. So, protect yourself this holiday season and march to the beat of your own drummer!

* This is NOT advice to stop tipping. Always tip your waitstaff! As we just discussed, it’s expected in the US and counted as part of a server’s salary.

  1. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.
  2. Azar, O. H. (2004). What sustains social norms and how they evolve?: The case of tipping. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 49-64.
  3. Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 305-313.
  4. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.