Abstract. Consumers often behave differently than they would ideally like to behave. We propose that an anticipatory pain of paying drives “tightwads” to s
Tightwads and spendthrifts: An interdisciplinary review
Consumers rely on a “pain of paying” to help deter their spending. While this is beneficial for some consumers, others experience levels of pain that create problems. “Tightwads” experience too much pain when considering spending and therefore spend less than they would ideally like to spend. By contrast, “spendthrifts” experience too little pain and therefore spend more than they would ideally like to spend. Neither are happy with how they handle money. In the decade since the tightwad‐spendthrift construct was introduced, much has been learned about what it is and is not (e.g., frugality, greed), what contextual factors are likely to reduce its importance, how it plays a role within romantic relationships, and when it might first emerge in childhood. This paper reviews the wide range of interdisciplinary research relevant to the tightwad‐spendthrift construct and proposes several directions for new research.
Spenders and savers, tightwads and spendthrifts: Individual correlates of personal ratings of being a spender or a saver.
The Consumer in Physical Pain: Implications for the Pain-of-Paying and Pricing
AbstractOver one in five Americans suffer from chronic pain—a figure that does not include other, milder, transient types of pain. Thus, there is abundant work exploring the influence of physical pain on physical and psychological welfare. However, there is no work regarding how physical pain influences consumption decisions, which is important because people in physical pain still buy products and make purchases. Give that physical pain “demands” attention, we suggest that consumers in physical pain (vs. those who are not) feel the pain-of-paying less, thereby increasing their purchase intentions and willingness-to-pay for products. We find evidence for our hypothesis in four studies with field and lab assessments of physical pain. We discuss the contributions and limitations of our work. We also highlight several implications that concern pricing decisions for marketers.
Malleable Mental Accounting: The Effect of Flexibility on the Justification of Attractive Spending and Consumption Decisions
Mental accounts are often characterized as self‐control devices that consumers employ to prevent excess spending and consumption. However, under certain conditions of ambiguity, the mental accounting process is malleable; that is, consumers have flexibility in assigning expenses to different mental accounts. We demonstrate how consumers flexibly classify expenses, or construct accounts, to justify spending. An expense that can be assigned to more than one account (i.e., an ambiguous expense) is more likely to be incurred than an unambiguous expense that is constrained either by existing budgets or by previously constructed accounts. We explore the justification processes that underlie these results and their implications for mental accounts as self‐control devices.
In-Store Spending Dynamics: How Budgets Invert Relative-Spending Patterns
Abstract The authors conduct four controlled lab experiments and one field study in a brick-and-mortar grocery store to demonstrate that relative spending—the price of the purchased item relative to the mean price of the product category—evolves nonlinearly and distinctly for budget and nonbudget shoppers. While the relative spending of budget shoppers evolves in a concave manner, the relative spending of nonbudget shoppers evolves inversely in a convex manner. Thus, budget (nonbudget) shoppers spend relatively more (less) in the middle than at the beginning and toward the end of their shopping trip. Mediation analyses confirm that the pain of paying experienced while shopping drives price salience, which then drives relative spending. Moreover, manipulating shoppers’ pain of paying, by altering the opportunity costs associated with their spending or drawing shoppers’ attention to their spending via real-time spending feedback, is shown to influence these spending patterns. The research offers theoretical contributions to the in-store decision-making, budgeting, and pain-of-paying literature and has important implications for marketing and promotion strategies in retail and mobile technology environments, as it suggests when a shopper may be more sensitive to price-related factors.
Pain of Paying? — A Metaphor Gone Literal: Evidence from Neural and Behavioral Science
How do individuals consider the price of a good when making purchase decisions? Standard economic theories assume an analytical process: Individuals consider th
Cut me some slack! How perceptions of financial slack influence pain of payment
Abstract Consumers often experience pain of payment, a tug of negative affect that holds back their spending. While the literature has long viewed pain of payment as self‐regulatory in nature, it has left the dynamics of self‐regulation that lead to the pain of paying largely unaddressed. In self‐regulation, affect arises when people move away from a goal they hold. Thus, understanding the specific goals that people consider when making a payment can help us better predict when pain of payment will arise. We propose that people have a goal to maintain financial slack, and that violating this goal contributes to pain of payment. Thus, people experience more pain of payment when the goal to maintain financial slack is stronger or when it is particularly salient that a purchase entails losing financial slack. Critically, subjective changes in financial slack are not equivalent to objective changes in wealth, altering pain of payment for economically equivalent trades. This research contributes to the existing literature by identifying a novel antecedent to the pain of payment. It additionally expands our understanding of people's preferences between payment systems. Finally, it offers guidance to practitioners who wish to minimize pain of payment among their consumers.
Unfixed Resources: Perceived Costs, Consumption, and the Accessible Account Effect
Abstract. Consumption depletes one's available resources, but consumers may be unaware of the total resources available for consumption and, therefore, be
The pain of payment: A review and research agenda
Abstract Pain of payment is the negative psychological affect consumers experience when they become cognizant that they have lost a certain amount of their financial resources (immediate pain) or when they become aware that they will or may lose a certain amount of their financial resources in the future (anticipated pain). Pain of payment plays a significant role in consumer decision making and has attracted substantial scholarly interest in recent years. In this article, we conduct a systematic literature review of the existing work on pain of payment. We advance theory in the field by proposing a new organizing framework that summarizes the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of pain of payment. Furthermore, we provide a formal definition of pain of payment that encompasses all facets of this construct. Subsequently, we identify knowledge gaps and outline research questions that could be explored to improve our understanding of this construct and advance consumer psychology.
Consumers’ Mental Representation of Expenditures: Implications for Spending and Saving Decisions
People’s mental representation of expenditures is crucial to how they budget. We propose that much like how people represent natural kinds (e.g., animals and pl
Restoring Consumer Sovereignty
For decades, there has been broad consensus within antitrust, intellectual property, and consumer law scholarship that consumers make decisions in their own best interests by consciously weighting the market’s relative prices, quantities, and qualities against each other. That consensus is unraveling in light of novel findings from cognitive and social psychology that explain how individuals’ concepts of what they prefer drive the global economy. At the same time, producers nowadays no longer merely satisfy consumers’ needs but also communicate their values, identities, and aspirations through the sale and marketing of products. As part of the growing interest in observations such as these, a wealth of psychological studies challenge the fundamental teaching of economics that the interplay of demand and supply of goods in a free market economy provides us with material wealth. This book provides a normative defense of that assumption and a theoretical framework for understanding its contradictions. It argues that the erosion of consumer sovereignty through the ability of product manufacturers and sellers to systematically take advantage of individuals’ psychological weaknesses demands a twenty-first-century reconceptualization of the consumer and a modern account of how the law should regulate the digital economy. Such an account is justified to ensure a diverse marketplace in which consumers can influence how our societies are structured and arranged. By examining the role that market manipulation plays, it offers ingredients for a realistic descriptive and normative market regulatory theory that is aware of its political economy, its behavioral suppositions, and its distributional consequences.
On shifting consumers from high‐interest to low‐interest debt
Abstract In the United States, many consumers are increasingly accumulating debt, much of which is harmful and expensive. Prior research has devoted a great deal of attention to understanding why consumers generally get into debt and the strategies they can use to repay existing debts. While this work has furthered the agenda of helping consumers reduce or eliminate their overall debt balances, it has failed to emphasize the fact that for many consumers, debt may be unavoidable. This article aims to promote research that addresses not only overall debt reduction but also the need for consumers to shift from more to less costly types of debt. By shedding light on the psychological reasons why consumers may naturally gravitate toward more costly forms of debt when less costly ones may be available, we offer a novel perspective on why consumers get into and stay in debt longer than they should. This new angle has the potential to spur on further research into the ways consumers can use debt more effectively and less expensively in service of the overarching goal of debt reduction.
The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt
In the standard economic account of consumer behavior the cost of a purchase takes the form of a reduction in future utility when expenditures that otherwise could have been made are forgone. The reality of consumer hedonics is different. When people make purchases, they often experience an immediate pain of paying, which can undermine the pleasure derived from consumption. The ticking of the taxi meter, for example, reduces one's pleasure from the ride. We propose a “double-entry” mental accounting theory that describes the nature of these reciprocal interactions between the pleasure of consumption and the pain of paying and draws out their implications for consumer behavior and hedonics. A central assumption of the model, which we call prospective accounting, is that consumption that has already been paid for can be enjoyed as if it were free and that the pain associated with payments made prior to consumption (but not after) is buffered by thoughts of the benefits that the payments will finance. Another important concept is coupling, which refers to the degree to which consumption calls to mind thoughts of payment, and vice versa. Some financing methods, such as credit cards, tend to weaken coupling, whereas others, such as cash payment, produce tight coupling. Our model makes a variety of predictions that are at variance with economic formulations. Contrary to the standard prediction that people will finance purchases to minimize the present value of payments, our model predicts strong debt aversion—that they should prefer to prepay for consumption or to get paid for work after it is performed. Such pay-before sequences confer hedonic benefits because consumption can be enjoyed without thinking about the need to pay for it in the future. Likewise, when paying beforehand, the pain of paying is mitigated by thoughts of future consumption benefits. Contrary to the economic prediction that consumers should prefer to pay, at the margin, for what they consume, our model predicts that consumers will find it less painful to pay for, and hence will prefer, flat-rate pricing schemes such as unlimited Internet access at a fixed monthly price, even if it involves paying more for the same usage. Other predictions concern spending patterns with cash, charge, or credit cards, and preferences for the earmarking of purchases. We test these predictions in a series of surveys and in a conjoint-like analysis that pitted our double-entry mental accounting model against a standard discounting formulation and another benchmark that did not incorporate hedonic interactions between consumption and payments. Our model provides a better fit of the data for 60% of the subjects; the discounting formulation provides a better fit for only 29% of the subjects (even when allowing for positive and negative discount rates). The pain of paying, we argue, plays an important role in consumer self-regulation, but is hedonically costly. From a hedonic perspective the ideal situation is one in which payments are tightly coupled to consumption (so that paying evokes thoughts about the benefits being financed) but consumption is decoupled from payments (so that consumption does not evoke thoughts about payment). From an efficiency perspective, however, it is important for consumers to be aware of what they are paying for consumption. This creates a tension between hedonic efficiency and what we call decision efficiency. Various institutional arrangements, such as financing of public parks through taxes or usage fees, play into this tradeoff. A producer developing a pricing structure for their product or service should be aware of these two conflicting objectives, and should try to devise a structure that reconciles them.
The Exception Is the Rule: Underestimating and Overspending on Exceptional Expenses
Abstract Purchases fall along a continuum from ordinary (common or frequent) to exceptional (unusual or infrequent), with many of the largest expenses (e.g., electronics, celebrations) being the most exceptional. Across seven studies, we show that, while people are fairly adept at budgeting and predicting how much they will spend on ordinary items, they both underestimate their spending on exceptional purchases overall and overspend on each individual purchase. Based on the principles of mental accounting and choice bracketing, we show that this discrepancy arises in part because consumers categorize exceptional expenses too narrowly, construing each as a unique occurrence and consequently overspending across a series of discretely exceptional expenses. We conclude by proposing an intervention that diminishes this tendency by helping consumers consider their spending on exceptional items as part of a larger set of purchases.
Yielding to Temptation: Self‐Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior
Abstract. Self-control is a promising concept for consumer research, and self-control failure may be an important cause of impulsive purchasing. Three caus
Purchase Justifiability Drives Payment Choice: Consumers Pay with Card to Remember and Cash to Forget
AbstractAlthough consumers often have multiple payment methods at their fingertips, such as cash and credit/debit cards, prior research is silent on how consumers choose between them. We home in on a key element of purchase—purchase justifiability—that affects how consumers choose to pay. Analysis of 118,042 real-world purchases and six experiments reveals that when consumers are motivated to forget (vs. remember) a purchase because they see it as difficult (vs. easy) to justify, they have an increased preference to pay with cash (vs. card) because cards create a “paper/electronic trail” that aids memory retrieval. These payment preferences are strongest among consumers most likely to recall/track their card spending, and manifest only when card expenses are trackable. We reconcile our results with the classic effect of payment method on pain of paying and discuss implications for merchants and for financial institutions designing payment methods of the future.
