This proposal builds on the idea that people assume that the more enjoyable or fun something (a product, activity, person) is, the less wholesome or good it is. If people do subscribe to this More Fun = Less Good intuition, it is important to examine its validity: is the true correlation between fun-ness and goodness of real-world stimuli negative? For example, are better looking cars less safe, attractive people less intelligent and tasty foods less healthy? It is also important to explore the impact of the intuition on decision-making: how does subscribing to the intuition influence inferences, judgments and choices? This research tests a number of propositions centered on these questions. Specifically, I test the proposition that: (1) the real-world correlation between the fun-ness and goodness of stimuli is not as negative as people believe it is, (2) people rely on the intuition, nevertheless, to make inferences, judgments and choices, and (3) people may not be aware of the influence of the intuition on their decision-making; as such, even those who do report disagreeing that the fun-ness and goodness of stimuli are negatively correlated nevertheless make decisions as if they subscribed to the intuition. These propositions are to be tested through a combination of surveys, secondary data analyses and experimental approaches.
Do people subscribe to the view that the "fun-ness" of things is inversely related their "goodness"? As part of this project, I conducted over 12 experiments and several surveys to address this question. These experiments and surveys were conducted across several domains, including consumer durables (e.g., Cars), services (e.g., classes offered at universities) and household goods (e.g., vacuum cleaners). Across all domains, my co-investigators and I found evidence in support of our thesis: people inferred that hedonically superior product/service (e.g., a better looking car or person) would be functionally inferior (e.g., less safe or less intelligent). The paper based on these findings is being prepared for submission to The Journal of Consumer Psychology. A secondary objective was to examine whether and how people’s subscription to the "less fun = more good" intuition would influence their decisions. We were particularly interested in the impact of the "unhealthy = tasty" intuition on people’s food choices. Confirming our predictions, we found that, the more a consumer subscribes to the belief that unhealthy food is tastier, the more he/she is likely to choose unhealthy food (in a bid to eat something tasty). Interestingly, we also found this tendency among those who felt that belief in the unhealthy = tasty intuition helps them make healthy food choices. Thus, it appears that the unhealthy = tasty intuition has a subversive effect on people’s food choices—not only does it steer people towards unhealthy food, people may not even be aware that it is doing so. The original paper on this topic was published in 2006 in the Journal of Marketing. A subsequent paper was recently rejected at the Journal of Consumer Psychology. In a third project, my co-investigators I looked into the influence of another compensatory lay-belief—the "more ethical = less effective" intuition on people’s judgments and decisions. We found that, across several product categories such as shampoos, detergents and automobile tires, consumers levy, what we call, the "sustainability penalty": the more ethical a product is (e.g., it is made out of biodegradable or recycled material), the less effective, durable or strong they expect the product to be. This paper was published in the Journal of Marketing in 2011. In the final project, a co-investigator and I are looking into whether people who believe that it is important act in a rational, logical manner tend to devalue the information contained in emotions. For example, do people who value rationality tend to ignore how they feel towards a product and, if so, how does it affect how they make their decisions? Our findings indicate that people who consider themselves to be rational do attempt to avoid being influenced by emotions, but because the influence of emotions often takes place outside of their awareness, they nevertheless cannot avoid being influenced by them. Thus, we find that even the self-declared "rationals" are susceptible to emotions. However, after making their decisions, these people tend to defend their decisions are being rational. The paper based on these findings is currently under review at The Journal of Consumer Research. In subsequent work, I expect to expand my investigations into the influence that these "compensatory" lay-beliefs (more fun = less good; more healthy = less tasty, etc.) have on emotional well-being. The findings from my projects have had a big impact on research and teaching. The original (2006) Journal of Marketing paper has been cited across a variety of fields, from food sciences and obesity to marketing and public policy and is considered a "new classic". The 2011 Journal of Marketing paper (on Sustainability Penalty) seems similarly poised to make a big impact across a variety of fields from Corporate Social Responsibility to Governmental Regulations. My findings have also been useful in teaching, especially in classes on Consumer Behavior. Finally, I have disseminated some of my findings through articles on blogs such as psychology today. I have provided links to two articles that are based on findings from grant-related projects: www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201104/the-unhealthy-tasty-intuition-are-you-under-its-subconscious-influence www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201104/do-people-think-ethical-is-ineffective
