- Email: [email protected]
Introduction to research dialogue on evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 3 (2013) 349 – 350
Editorial Note
Introduction to research dialogue on evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior Research Dialogues were introduced in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in 2004 under the editorship of Robert S. (Bob) Wyer. These dialogues have since become a distinctive part of JCP's identity, featuring some of the Journal's most impactful articles (e.g., Schwarz, 2004; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007; Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007). I am honored to have been asked by the current editor-in-chief Connie Pechmann to edit the Research Dialogue section of the Journal. In this capacity, I follow the distinguished footsteps of Sharon Shavitt, Norbert Schwarz, Joe Priester and Richard Petty. The first dialogue under my area editorship examines evolutionary-psychology-based explanations of consumer behavior. For the past 40 years, consumer psychology has been largely dominated by three theoretical paradigms: cognitive psychology, social psychology (with a strong emphasis on social cognition), and behavioral decision theory. This dominance has resulted in a somewhat narrow and mechanistic depiction of consumer behavior. As I recently discussed elsewhere (Pham, 2013), I strongly believe that the field would greatly benefit from studying consumption behavior and consumer psychology from a broader set of theoretical perspectives. A candidate perspective is that of evolutionary psychology (EP). Over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth in research studying human behavior and psychology from an evolutionary perspective (Buss, 2012). Can many consumption phenomena be explained by the notion of a human mind that was gradually shaped by tens of thousands of years of survival and reproductive pressures? To address this question, this research dialogue features two target articles from major proponents of evolutionary-based explanations of consumption behavior: one by Gad Saad (S) and one by Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas Kenrick (GK). Saad is a pioneer in EP-based explanations of consumer behavior and has authored a major treaty on the subject (Saad, 2007). Griskevicius, Kenrick, and their colleagues have been prolific contributors to the empirical literature on EP. In his target piece, Saad provides a general introduction to the principles of evolutionary psychology. He then discusses how evolutionary theory might enrich our understanding of various subjects of general interest to consumer psychologists, including consumer memory, attitude formation and change, emotions, sensory perception, and decision making. He next reviews a
broad range of consumption-relevant findings that he discusses in terms of four primary evolutionary “modules”: the “survival module,” the “mating module,” the “kin module,” and the “reciprocity module.” He then interprets the content of various cultural products such as news articles and popular songs from the lenses of EP. He follows with a discussion of the notion of happiness from a Darwinian perspective, and concludes with an extensive discussion of the promises of EP to consumer research. In the second target article, Griskevicius and Kenrick stress the importance of distinguishing between ultimate and proximate explanations of human behavior. That a consumer chooses a rich chocolate desert because he (or she) “is hungry” or “likes chocolate”—a proximate explanation—does not preclude the possibility that this choice may also reflect a more fundamental evolutionary principle: that is, an ancestral preference for food that is rich in calories, which would be an ultimate explanation. GK then introduce their own evolutionary framework, “the fundamental motives framework,” which posits the existence of seven deep-seated evolutionary motives: “(1) evading physical harm, (2) avoiding disease, (3) making friends, (4) attaining status, (5) acquiring a mate, (6) keeping a mate, and (7) caring for family” (see also Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010). Each of these fundamental motives is linked to key theories and ideas such as “costly signaling” and “incest avoidance” that play an important role in evolutionary theory. They then discuss the results of numerous studies, many of them from their own program of research, testing various aspects of this general framework. They conclude with a roadmap for future research on EP and consumer behavior. In a first commentary, Joel Cohen, one of the founding fathers of the field of consumer research, and Russell Bernard, a cultural anthropologist, question some of the basic assumptions that underlie both Saad's and Griskevicius and Kenrick's conceptualizations. While Cohen and Bernard accept that many behaviors are driven by inherited factors (as S and GK and general EP theory posit), they point out to recent research suggesting that behaviors can be inherited through processes other than strict genetic transmission (as held by EP theory). Other processes of behavioral inheritance include epigenetic alterations (changes in gene expression rather than in actual DNA sequence) and socially mediated information transmission. Cohen and
1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2013 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.04.002
350
Editorial Note
Bernard additionally question the “massive-modularity” hypothesis that both S and GK embrace. Cohen and Bernard then revisit various empirical findings that S and/or GK construe as supporting an evolutionary explanation. Cohen and Bernard conclude their commentary by stressing the importance of cultural explanations of consumer behavior that operate on an intermediate time scale: a longer time frame than the typical psychological explanation favored today (e.g., information processing or behavioral decision theory), but a shorter time frame than that of human evolution. In the second commentary, Stephen Downes, a philosopher of science and of biology, notes that evolutionary psychology is only one of several theoretical perspectives on evolution and human behavior: other relevant perspectives include behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, ethology, and sociobiology. He further notes that S and GK embrace a particular viewpoint within evolutionary psychology: the view advanced by Cosmides and Tooby (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). According to Downes, one can get a better understanding of the role of evolution in consumer behavior by expanding one's theoretical perspective beyond Cosmides and Tooby's particular viewpoint and beyond EP in general. Downes also questions the epistemic value of trying to ascribe specific “ultimate” causes to particular consumption behaviors if such behaviors are likely determined by “a myriad of causal factors.” Like Cohen and Bernard, Downes questions the modularity assumptions underlying S's and GK's work, albeit for slightly different reasons. To illustrate his concerns with S's and GK's type of explanations of consumption behavior, Downes discusses research on the preferred-waist– hip-ratio phenomenon, which features prominently in EP theory. In a joint rejoinder, Kenrick, Saad, and Griskevicius respond to Cohen and Bernard's and Downes's comments and questions. They argue that what is important in evaluating the potential of EP as a potential explanation of consumer behavior is not whether the core assumptions and mechanisms of EP have been unambiguously demonstrated, but rather whether “research on
consumer choice can be enriched and expanded by incorporating what is already known about behavioral biology, … as well as the broader nomological network of evolution-inspired research.” In addition, they elaborate on the evidence supporting their theoretical views, including evidence supporting the modularity hypothesis. They conclude by suggesting that an evolutionary perspective on consumer behavior addresses many of the “seven sins of consumer psychology” that I recently pointed out (Pham, 2013). References Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314. Pham, M. T. (2013). The seven sins of consumer psychology. Presidential address to the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Antonio, TX. Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 3–18.
Michel Tuan Pham Columbia University, Graduate School of Business, 3022 Broadway, Uris Hall 515, New York, NY 10025, USA E-mail addresses: [email protected]. 19 April 2013
Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 3 (2013) 349 – 350
Editorial Note
Introduction to research dialogue on evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior Research Dialogues were introduced in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in 2004 under the editorship of Robert S. (Bob) Wyer. These dialogues have since become a distinctive part of JCP's identity, featuring some of the Journal's most impactful articles (e.g., Schwarz, 2004; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007; Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007). I am honored to have been asked by the current editor-in-chief Connie Pechmann to edit the Research Dialogue section of the Journal. In this capacity, I follow the distinguished footsteps of Sharon Shavitt, Norbert Schwarz, Joe Priester and Richard Petty. The first dialogue under my area editorship examines evolutionary-psychology-based explanations of consumer behavior. For the past 40 years, consumer psychology has been largely dominated by three theoretical paradigms: cognitive psychology, social psychology (with a strong emphasis on social cognition), and behavioral decision theory. This dominance has resulted in a somewhat narrow and mechanistic depiction of consumer behavior. As I recently discussed elsewhere (Pham, 2013), I strongly believe that the field would greatly benefit from studying consumption behavior and consumer psychology from a broader set of theoretical perspectives. A candidate perspective is that of evolutionary psychology (EP). Over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth in research studying human behavior and psychology from an evolutionary perspective (Buss, 2012). Can many consumption phenomena be explained by the notion of a human mind that was gradually shaped by tens of thousands of years of survival and reproductive pressures? To address this question, this research dialogue features two target articles from major proponents of evolutionary-based explanations of consumption behavior: one by Gad Saad (S) and one by Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas Kenrick (GK). Saad is a pioneer in EP-based explanations of consumer behavior and has authored a major treaty on the subject (Saad, 2007). Griskevicius, Kenrick, and their colleagues have been prolific contributors to the empirical literature on EP. In his target piece, Saad provides a general introduction to the principles of evolutionary psychology. He then discusses how evolutionary theory might enrich our understanding of various subjects of general interest to consumer psychologists, including consumer memory, attitude formation and change, emotions, sensory perception, and decision making. He next reviews a
broad range of consumption-relevant findings that he discusses in terms of four primary evolutionary “modules”: the “survival module,” the “mating module,” the “kin module,” and the “reciprocity module.” He then interprets the content of various cultural products such as news articles and popular songs from the lenses of EP. He follows with a discussion of the notion of happiness from a Darwinian perspective, and concludes with an extensive discussion of the promises of EP to consumer research. In the second target article, Griskevicius and Kenrick stress the importance of distinguishing between ultimate and proximate explanations of human behavior. That a consumer chooses a rich chocolate desert because he (or she) “is hungry” or “likes chocolate”—a proximate explanation—does not preclude the possibility that this choice may also reflect a more fundamental evolutionary principle: that is, an ancestral preference for food that is rich in calories, which would be an ultimate explanation. GK then introduce their own evolutionary framework, “the fundamental motives framework,” which posits the existence of seven deep-seated evolutionary motives: “(1) evading physical harm, (2) avoiding disease, (3) making friends, (4) attaining status, (5) acquiring a mate, (6) keeping a mate, and (7) caring for family” (see also Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010). Each of these fundamental motives is linked to key theories and ideas such as “costly signaling” and “incest avoidance” that play an important role in evolutionary theory. They then discuss the results of numerous studies, many of them from their own program of research, testing various aspects of this general framework. They conclude with a roadmap for future research on EP and consumer behavior. In a first commentary, Joel Cohen, one of the founding fathers of the field of consumer research, and Russell Bernard, a cultural anthropologist, question some of the basic assumptions that underlie both Saad's and Griskevicius and Kenrick's conceptualizations. While Cohen and Bernard accept that many behaviors are driven by inherited factors (as S and GK and general EP theory posit), they point out to recent research suggesting that behaviors can be inherited through processes other than strict genetic transmission (as held by EP theory). Other processes of behavioral inheritance include epigenetic alterations (changes in gene expression rather than in actual DNA sequence) and socially mediated information transmission. Cohen and
1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2013 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.04.002
350
Editorial Note
Bernard additionally question the “massive-modularity” hypothesis that both S and GK embrace. Cohen and Bernard then revisit various empirical findings that S and/or GK construe as supporting an evolutionary explanation. Cohen and Bernard conclude their commentary by stressing the importance of cultural explanations of consumer behavior that operate on an intermediate time scale: a longer time frame than the typical psychological explanation favored today (e.g., information processing or behavioral decision theory), but a shorter time frame than that of human evolution. In the second commentary, Stephen Downes, a philosopher of science and of biology, notes that evolutionary psychology is only one of several theoretical perspectives on evolution and human behavior: other relevant perspectives include behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, ethology, and sociobiology. He further notes that S and GK embrace a particular viewpoint within evolutionary psychology: the view advanced by Cosmides and Tooby (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). According to Downes, one can get a better understanding of the role of evolution in consumer behavior by expanding one's theoretical perspective beyond Cosmides and Tooby's particular viewpoint and beyond EP in general. Downes also questions the epistemic value of trying to ascribe specific “ultimate” causes to particular consumption behaviors if such behaviors are likely determined by “a myriad of causal factors.” Like Cohen and Bernard, Downes questions the modularity assumptions underlying S's and GK's work, albeit for slightly different reasons. To illustrate his concerns with S's and GK's type of explanations of consumption behavior, Downes discusses research on the preferred-waist– hip-ratio phenomenon, which features prominently in EP theory. In a joint rejoinder, Kenrick, Saad, and Griskevicius respond to Cohen and Bernard's and Downes's comments and questions. They argue that what is important in evaluating the potential of EP as a potential explanation of consumer behavior is not whether the core assumptions and mechanisms of EP have been unambiguously demonstrated, but rather whether “research on
consumer choice can be enriched and expanded by incorporating what is already known about behavioral biology, … as well as the broader nomological network of evolution-inspired research.” In addition, they elaborate on the evidence supporting their theoretical views, including evidence supporting the modularity hypothesis. They conclude by suggesting that an evolutionary perspective on consumer behavior addresses many of the “seven sins of consumer psychology” that I recently pointed out (Pham, 2013). References Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314. Pham, M. T. (2013). The seven sins of consumer psychology. Presidential address to the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Antonio, TX. Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 3–18.
Michel Tuan Pham Columbia University, Graduate School of Business, 3022 Broadway, Uris Hall 515, New York, NY 10025, USA E-mail addresses: [email protected]. 19 April 2013