463䉷 2003 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 29 ● March 2003All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2003/2904-0001$10.00The Devaluation Effect: Activating a NeedDevalues Unrelated ObjectsC. MIGUEL BRENDLARTHUR B. MARKMANCLAUDE MESSNER*It is commonly assumed thatanobject capableof satisfyinganeed willbeperceivedas subjectively more valuable as the need for it intensifies. For example, the moreactive the need to eat, the more valuable food will become. This outcome couldbe called a valuation effect. In this article, we suggest a second basic influenceof needs on evaluations: that activating a focal need (e.g., to eat) makes objectsunrelated to that need (e.g., shampoo) less valuable, an outcome we refer to asthe devaluation effect. Two existing studies support the existence of a devaluationeffect using manipulations of the need to eat and to smoke and measuring at-tractiveness of consumer products and willingness to purchase raffle tickets. Fur-thermore, the evidence suggests that consumers are not aware of the devaluationeffect and its influence on their preferences.In research on decision making, one of the core theoreticalconstructs relating to preference is utility. Models basedon utility assume that people’s preferences for an object orits properties depend on the degree to which the object orproperty can satisfy some active goal. The utility of an objectwill vary as people’s goals relating to that object change inintensity. Thus utility (as well as common sense) is consis-tent with a valuation relation between goals and choicewhereby an object is valued according to the extent that itis perceived as instrumental to satisfying an active goal. Forexample, food should be perceived as more valuable whenpeople need to eat than when they do not (see Markmanand Brendl [2000] for further discussion).In order to select a goal and to maintain goal-directedbehavior, however, the motivational system may have to rely*C. Miguel Brendl is assistant professor of marketing at INSEAD, Fon-tainebleau, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France([email protected]). Arthur B. Markman is associate professor ofpsychology at the University of Texas, Austin, 78712 ([email protected]). Claude Messner is doctoral student in psychology,Institut fu¨r Psychologie, Universita¨t Basel, Bernoullistr. 16, 4056 Basel,Switzerland ([email protected]). Messner conducted study 1 forhis diploma thesis submitted to the University of Konstanz. We thank JimBettman, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Peter Gollwitzer, Ryan Gossen, JulieIrwin, Itamar Simonson, Hunt Stilwell, the editor, the associate editor, andthree reviewers for comments on these studies and previous drafts of thisarticle. We are also grateful to Danny Chung, Billy Dilly, Monika Heller,Mareike Messner, and Joachim Vosgerau who served as experimenters.This research was supported by German Science Foundation grant DFG:BR1722/1-2 given to Brendl; by National Science Foundation grant SBR-9905013 given to Markman; and by a Transcoop Award from the GermanAmerican Academic Council to Brendl and Markman.on more than just the valuation of goal-relevant objects. Forexample, once selected, the motivational system must pro-tect the active goal from tempting alternatives. One way toachieve this could be by reducing the attractiveness of po-tentially tempting objects that are not instrumental to sat-isfying the active goal. For example, a strong need to eatmay make movie tickets less attractive. This outcome wouldbe a devaluation of objects unrelated to a focal goal.The purpose of this article is to establish the existence ofthe devaluation effect and its influence on preference for-mation. Although we will not directly investigate thosemechanisms driving the devaluation effect, we discuss arange of possible causes at a later stage.Valuation and DevaluationLewin (1935) established the relationship between theevaluation of objects and goals by suggesting that objectsare perceived as positive or negative (i.e., they have a va-lence) to the extent that they support or hinder active goals.The capacity of an object to satisfy goals or needs is alsocalled instrumentality (Rosenberg 1956; see also Lynch,Marmorstein, and Weigold [1988], from a perspective ofdiagnosticity). Models of goals and consumer choice havefocused on the influence of activating goals on the attrac-tiveness of objects related to these goals (Brendl and Higgins1996; Ratneshwar, Mick, and Huffman 2000).By devaluation of unrelated objects, we mean objects thatare neither perceived as instrumental nor as disinstrumental(i.e., counterproductive) to the focal need or goal. By needwe mean a state associated with a physiologically based464 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHoutcome, whereas a goal is a state associated with a psy-chological outcome. Lewin also introduced the idea thatpsychological goals cause needlike states or “quasi needs”that can differ in activation. In support of the notion of quasineeds, subjects who were interrupted before they could com-plete a task were more likely to spontaneously take up thetask again than were subjects who had not been interrupted.Presumably, a task goal is active until it is reached, makingany activity that can help reach that goal momentarily moredesirable. While this article focuses on needs, Lewin’s worksuggests that goals share important properties with needs.Although valuation follows directly from the assumptionthat preference for an object is related to its utility, therehave been surprisingly few demonstrations that activationof a focal goal increases the attractiveness of goal-relatedobjects. There is clear evidence for valuation effects forsome perceptual experiences, such as smell, taste, and ther-mal perception. For example, fasting subjects rated thepleasantness of tasting a sweet solution more highly thannonfasting subjects. Sniffing orange syrup was pleasant forfasting subjects but unpleasant after having ingested a glu-cose load. Subjects immersed in a warm bath found dippingtheir hand into cold and warm water respectively pleasantand unpleasant, whereas the reverse was true for subjectssitting in a cold bath (Cabanac 1971).While the research of the Lewin group on quasi needs isconsistent with valuation effects, it is equally consistent withdevaluation effects. As an example, consider subjects whosegoal is to finish a puzzle. Goal-related activities (solving apuzzle) are strongly preferred to
View Full Document
Unlocking...