Marketing for Consumers with Serotonin Deficiency: The Compromise Effect and Choice Deferral Marcel Lichters1*, Claudia Brunnlieb1, Gideon Nave2, Marko Sarstedt13, Bodo Vogt1 1
Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg | 2 The Wharton School, Philadelphia | 3 University of Newcastle, Newcastle | *
[email protected]
I – INTRODUCTION
II – RESEARCH GOALS
1) The role of Serotonin in decision-making processes: Serotonin has been shown to be involved in decision-making processes that require cognitive effort and self-control (Cardinal, 2006; Denk et al., 2005; Schweighofer et al., 2008). More precisely, serotonin deficiency impairs subjects’ cognition and reduces their capacity to cope with complex decisions (Crockett et al., 2008; Hayward et al., 2005; Park et al., 1994; Riedel, 2004). On the basis of this evidence, we assume that serotonin deficiency impedes cognitively demanding decision processes (System II).
2) The Compromise Effect Consumers recognize the inherent trade-offs between product attributes and make cognitively demanding comparisons between the options (Jang and Yoon, 2016; Khan, Zhu, and Kalra, 2011), but ultimately they tend to choose the compromise option. Thus, theoretical accounts of the compromise effect have viewed it as resulting from deliberate, complex, cognitively demanding decision-making processes (System II rather than System I; Dhar and Gorlin, 2013; Pocheptsova et al., 2009).
We study how a central reduction of the neurotransmitter serotonin influences: (1) Subjects’ tendency to avoid buying, and (2) The compromise effect
We expect the following: H1: Consumers with serotonin deficiency will buy less often relative to the placebo group. H2: The compromise effect will decrease under serotonin deficiency. Contrary to previous research, we aim to conduct investigations in a more realistic setting: Consequently, this research – involving a sequence of 5 studies - took into account real branded fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) as well as durable goods and includes incentive-aligning mechanisms, and the possibility of a pre-choice evaluation.
III – STUDY DESIGN STUDY 1
We induced a central serotonin reduction using Acute Tryptophan Depletion (ATD) in a between-subject design (ATD vs. placebo)
4 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design 4 product categories (within-subjects): hazelnut spread, headphones, ketchup, and mulled wine Number of products per choice set: 2 vs. 3 (within-subjects) Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
no-buy option n= 47 (ATD: 23, placebo: 24) healthy male students
STUDY 2 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design 2 product categories (within-subjects) potato chips and toothpaste Number of products per choice set: 2 vs. 3 (between-subjects) Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
Incentive-Aligning Mechanism: We conducted a random payoff mechanism. One randomly selected decision per subject in each study became relevant (binding choice to introduce real economic consequences (see Lichters, Sarstedt, & Vogt, 2015). We accounted for subjects‘ mood (Steyer et al., 1994), their risk attitude (Dohmen et al., 2010), and their incentive aligned risk taking behavior (Holt & Laury, 2002).
no-buy option n= 98 (ATD: 49, placebo: 49) healthy male students
Construction of choice scenarios Price variation within the studies
STUDY 3 no compromise opt. no-buy option n= 98 (ATD: 49, placebo: 49) healthy male students
cheap
cheap
Choice configuration
Price
Low-tier option (L) Price
2 × 2 mixed factorial design 2 product categories (within-subjects) headphones and hazelnut spread Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
Amino acid drink
Target option (M)
STUDY 4
High-tier option (H) low
forced Choice 2 study parts (a and b)
high
5
2 3 4 #Choice scenario
1
Quality
EXAMPLE - Study 1
n= 49 (ATD: 25, placebo: 24) healthy male students
b) 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design 2 product categories (within-subjects) hazelnut spread and mouthwashes Number of products per choice set: 2 vs. 3 (between-subjects) Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
expensive
expensive
a) 3 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design 3 product categories (within-subjects) FMCG: chips, ketchup and toothpaste Number of products per choice set: 2 vs. 3 (within-subjects) Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
High-tier option (H)
AFTER
BINARY CHOICE SET
TRINARY CHOICE SET
STUDY 5 2 × 2 × 2mixed factorial design 2 durable product categories (within-subjects) Braun’s Oral-B electric toothbrushes and Sony’s stereo headphones Number of products per choice set: 2 vs. 3 (within-subjects) Conditions: treatment vs. placebo (between-subjects)
forced choice n= 49 (ATD: 25, placebo: 24) healthy male students
IV – RESULTS MAIN FINDINGS (Study 1-4) 1) Across all studies, serotonin depletion significantly lowers purchase rates compared to the placebo group in support of H1 2) Serotonin depletion eliminates the compromise effect in support of H2 FURTHER FINDINGS (Study 5) The compromise effect is more robust in choices between durables the effect diminishes under an ATD-induced cognitive impairment, but its decrease is not as pronounced as with FMCG.
35
30 25
35.70 %
35
30.00 % 26.90 %
30
20.7 %
20.2 %
20
40
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
p
