![Page 1: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions
Scott Rick
Ross School of Business
University of Michigan
![Page 2: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Intangibility in Intertemporal Choice
• In research and theory, intertemporal choice frequently conceptualized as an explicit tradeoff – e.g., Mischel’s delay of gratification paradigm– e.g., Intertemporal choice experiments in economics
• In the lab, subjects know precisely what they forego by consuming immediately
• Outside the lab, costs of immediate consumption not only delayed, but poorly defined and hence intangible as well– Prices defined in terms of money, not what else money can buy
![Page 3: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Price and Opportunity Cost
“Decision makers confronted with a showcase full of beluga
caviar consider how much hamburger they could buy with the
money [that] a pound of caviar costs…People intuitively take
opportunity costs into account.”
– Becker, Ronen, and Sorter (1974)
“The opportunity cost of money is easy to assess…What comes
to mind as the next best use for money remains fairly constant
across situations.”
– Okada and Hoch (2004)
![Page 4: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Pain a Possible Proxy For Opportunity Costs
• Consumers often do not spontaneously assess the opportunity costs of money – e.g., “keep the money for other purchases” ≠ “don’t buy”
(Frederick et al. 2009)– cf. Jones et al. 1998; Kourilsky & Murray 1981
• Brain needs a way to compare delayed, intangible outcomes to immediate, tangible ones– One possible solution to this problem: the “pain of paying”– Originally proposed by Prelec & Loewenstein (1998) as an
explanation for a variety of phenomena (e.g., flat-rate bias)– Conceptualized here as emotional distress in response to the
prospect of spending
![Page 5: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Neural Predictors of Purchases Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec & Loewenstein (2007), Neuron
• Do people rely on pain when considering purchases?
• Insula interprets bodily sensations and, often, generates subjective feelings of distress– Active when anticipating pain (e.g., electric shocks; traumatic
photos)– Active when experiencing distress (e.g., unfair UG offers; exclusion)– Correlates w/ subjective ratings of distress (e.g., Masten et al. 2009)– Plays crucial role in generating aversive cravings (Naqvi et al. 2007)
![Page 6: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Study Design
• 26 Ps (46% female; age range: 18-26)
• Ps completed two sessions (< two weeks apart)– 40 purchase decisions (buy or don’t buy) per session– At end of each session, Ps rated product attractiveness– No behavioral / neural difference across sessions; results pooled
• Ps received $20 per session to make purchases– One decision per session randomly selected to count for real– If decision was to buy, price collected immediately and product
shipped within two weeks
• Products retailed for $10-80– Offered at 75% off retail price
![Page 7: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Discounted Price % Of Ps Who Purchased
$5 71%
$2 42%
$7 17%
$16 17%
Average $7.20 30%
![Page 8: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Save Holdings or Purchase (SHOP) Task
4s 4s 4s
Godiva Chocolate Godiva Chocolate
Price: $7
Godiva Chocolate
Price: $7
Yes No
![Page 9: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Nucleus Accumbens Activation Correlates Positively with Product Attractiveness and Buying Decisions
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
% S
ign
al C
han
ge
* * * *
*Buy Mean ≠ Don’t Buy Mean at p<.05 level
Buy
Don’t Buy
4s 4s 4s
Godiva Chocolate Godiva ChocolatePrice: $7
Godiva ChocolatePrice: $7
Yes No
*
Correlation with Attractiveness Ratings
![Page 10: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Right Insula Activation Correlates Negatively with Buying Decisions
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
% S
ign
al C
han
ge
*
* *
*
*Buy Mean ≠ Don’t Buy Mean at p<.05 level
Buy
Don’t Buy
4s 4s 4s
Godiva Chocolate Godiva ChocolatePrice: $7
Godiva ChocolatePrice: $7
Yes No
R Insula
Correlation with Purchase Decision
![Page 11: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tightwads and SpendthriftsRick, Cryder & Loewenstein (2008), JCR
• Reliance on pain could lead to one of two mistakes– “Spendthrifts” do not experience enough pain– “Tightwads” experience too much pain
• ST-TW scale measures individual differences in the tendency to experience a pain of paying – Four items; sample item:
Mr. A...realizes he doesn’t need anything, yet can’t resist and ends up spending almost $100 on stuff.
Mr. B…figures he can get great deals on many items that he needs, yet the thought of spending the money keeps him from buying the stuff.
In terms of your own behavior, who are you more similar to, A or B? (1 = B; 5 = A)
![Page 12: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Does the Spendthrift-Tightwad Scale Differ from Other Constructs?
• Relationship between ST-TW scale and 28 plausibly related scales assessed– ST-TW most closely related to frugality (Lastovicka et al. 1999)
• e.g., “Making better use of my resources makes me feel good”
• 316 Ps completed ST-TW and Frugality scales and, later, rated agreement with two statements
ST-TW –.42*** –.01
Frugality .02 .45***
Regressions Predicting Agreement with:
Spending money is painful for me
Saving money ispleasurable for me
![Page 13: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Do Spendthrifts outnumber Tightwads?
• Across all samples (N>20,000), tightwads outnumber spendthrifts by 3:2 ratio
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f R
es
po
nd
en
ts
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Tightwad SpendthriftUnconflicted
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f R
es
po
nd
en
ts
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f R
es
po
nd
en
ts
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Tightwad SpendthriftUnconflicted Tightwad SpendthriftUnconflicted
(n=315) (n=11,199) (n=526)
![Page 14: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Income Cannot Explain Savings and Debt Differences Between Tightwads and Spendthrifts
Credit Card Usage Total Savings Annual Income
• Tightwads save more, and have less debt, than spendthrifts at each income level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Does Not Use Use, No Debt Use, In Debt
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
on
su
me
r T
yp
e
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
$0-10k $10-50k $50-100k $100-250k >$250k
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
$0-10k $10-50k $50-100k $100-250k >$250k
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
$0-10,000 > $250,000
Tightwad
Spendthrift
![Page 15: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
ST/TW Spending Differences Across Categories
• Pr(spending >$50 over past 30 days); N=1315 (all p<.05)
Clothes Appearance Book/CD/DVD
Restaurants Entertainment Gifts
Coffee/Tea/Pastries Favorite Hobby
• All ST/TW spending differences remain significant when controlling for gender
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Tightwad Spendthrift
![Page 16: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Varying the Psychological Magnitude of Payment: “Small” Fee Study
• If tightwads are most prone to experiencing the pain of paying, tightwads should be most sensitive to situational factors that reduce that pain– By same logic, spendthrifts should be least sensitive
• 538 CMU undergrads asked to imagine they would receive a free DVD box set of their choosing in 4 weeks
Would you be willing to pay a [small] $5 fee to receive the box set by overnight delivery, rather than waiting 4 weeks?
![Page 17: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Reframing Fee as “Small” Has Greater Impact on Tightwads
• Significant interaction (χ2(1) = 4.21; p < .05)
![Page 18: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Reframing Fee as “Small” Has Greater Impact on Tightwads
• Significant interaction (χ2(1) = 4.21; p < .05)– Same interaction observed when $100 massage framed as
investment in future well-being (vs. luxury providing brief pleasure)
![Page 19: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Does Alcohol Amplify ST/TW Spending Differences?(with Tamar Krishnamurti, in progress)
• Under influence of alcohol, we can only focus on aspects of environment that are most salient– “Alcohol myopia” (Steele and Josephs 1990)
• Tightwads and spendthrifts may naturally focus on different aspects of potential purchases– Tightwads likely primarily focused on price– Spendthrifts likely primarily focused on product
• Alcohol should amplify ST/TW spending differences
![Page 20: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Procedure
• 80 adults (age range: 21-30) consumed what they perceived to be alcohol– Half received actual alcoholic beverage (a vodka tonic)– Half received alcoholic placebo (tonic water in a glass rubbed with
vodka to create the odor of a real drink; cf. Steele & Josephs 1988)
• Mean BAL at time of SHOP task in alcohol condition = .09• Mean BAL in no alcohol condition = .0004
• Ps given (hypothetical) opportunity to purchase 10 goods at 50% off retail price– e.g., digital camera, iPod shuffle
![Page 21: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Alcohol Amplifies ST/TW Spending Differences
$113.80
$62.10
$94.77
$91.60
$60
$80
$100
$120
No Alcohol Alcohol
To
tal
Am
ou
nt
Sp
ent
Tightwads
Spendthrifts
![Page 22: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Fatal (Fiscal) AttractionRick, Small & Finkel (under revision)
• Typically, birds of a feather flock together– But for disliked aspects of the self, dissimilar mates tend to be
most appealing (Klohnen & Mendelsohn 1998)– Relevant because TWs and STs don’t like being TWs and STs
• Surveys of 1,136 married adults reveal that tightwads and spendthrifts tend to marry one another
• Relationship holds when controlling for debt, savings
![Page 23: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Preliminary Prescriptions
• Tightwads– Marry a tightwad to maximize financial well-being– Marry a tightwad to maximize marital satisfaction
• Spendthrifts– Marry a tightwad to maximize financial well-being– Marry a spendthrift to maximize marital satisfaction
![Page 24: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Caveats Regarding Pain of Paying
• fMRI results are correlational– Multiple methods should be used to establish causality
• Drugs could be informative– e.g., Naloxone
• An opioid antagonist that intensifies the pain of negative stimuli
• Electric shocks more painful after naloxone administered than after placebo (Buchsbaum et al. 1977)
• Increases anterior insula activation and self-reported distress in response to losing money (Petrovic et al. 2008)
• Insula lesion patients should be least sensitive to situational pain of paying manipulations
![Page 25: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Neural Antecedents of the Endowment EffectKnutson, Wimmer, Rick, Hollon, Prelec & Loewenstein (2008), Neuron
• Endowment effect commonly attributed to loss aversion
– But more nuanced accounts have also been proposed• Focusing on the foregone (Carmon & Ariely 2000)
• Query theory (Johnson, Haubl & Keinan 2007)
• Sellers more (less) likely than buyers to focus on positive (negative) attributes of owned goods (Nayakankuppam & Mishra 2005)
• Sellers associate owned goods with the self (Beggan 1992)
• Evolution favored people who exhibited the endowment effect (Huck et al. 2005)
• ‘Subject misconceptions’ (Plott & Zeiler 2005)
• 24 Ps bought and sold goods while having their brains scanned with fMRI
![Page 26: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Procedure
• Subjects were endowed with two goods and $60 to spend
• Retail prices of goods ranged from $35 to $95
• Each good offered at several different prices, ranging from 5% to 95% of retail price – Extreme high and low values appeared early to prevent anchoring
(cf. Ariely, Loewenstein & Prelec 2003)– One choice per good randomly selected to count for real– A modified BDM procedure (cf. Lerner, Small & Loewenstein 2004)
• Three conditions: buying, selling, and choosing– Two goods per condition
![Page 27: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Modified SHOP Task
![Page 28: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Behavioral Results
• Large WTA/WTP gap
• Consistent with prior work (Carmon & Ariely 2000; Brenner et al. 2007), gap is largest among attractive goods
![Page 29: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Activation in Right Insula in Response to Attractive, Owned Goods Correlates with Size of WTA/WTP Gap
• NAcc similarly active across conditions– Enhanced wanting, without enhanced liking?
r = .52
r = .39
![Page 30: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Summary
• Insula activation negatively correlates with spending– Initial neuroscientific evidence suggesting consumers rely on pain
• A correlation; other methods will be required to establish causality
• Spendthrift-Tightwad scale appears to capture individual differences in tendency to experience a pain of paying– Large ST/TW differences in savings and debt cannot be explained
by differences in income– Situationally reducing pain reduces ST/TW spending differences– Reducing info. processing capacity increases ST/TW differences
• Insula activation when contemplating selling goods predicts size of WTA/WTP gap
![Page 31: Neural Correlates of Buying and Selling Decisions Scott Rick Ross School of Business University of Michigan](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551c1f98550346b24f8b5af1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Thanks!