Blissful ignorance effect

Last updated

In consumer behaviour studies, the Blissful Ignorance Effect is when people who have good information about a product are not expected to be as happy with the product as people who have less information about it. [1] This happens because the person who bought the product wants to feel like they have bought the right thing. However, if the person already knows how the product works they have a tougher time trying to justify the product to themselves if it has any problems.

Contents

This effect illustrates how consumer's goals subsequently change after they have made their purchases. People crave for precise, detailed information in their decision-making stage. However, after making a choice, priorities shift as people want to be contented with their decision. In order to achieve this, information vagueness possibly increases content and acceptance of that decision by concealing the full picture and justifying the decision made. [2]

In an experiment to test the blissful ignorance effect, two groups were created and told information about a product. The first group was told about the manufacturer's claims and given research from an outside company, the second group was given minimal information about the product. At the end of the experiment the subjects were interviewed and the researcher found that the subjects in the second group had expected the product to perform better than the first group had. [3]

Background

The Blissful Ignorance Effect (BIE) involves two key factors: the nature of the presented information (precise vs vague) and the time of occurrence of a decision (before vs after). Individuals tend to want precise information before making a decision and vague information after the decision has been made. It is postulated that there are underlying psychological processes that may explain this.

Research suggests that there are fundamentally two goals that constitutes the full decision-making process—accuracy goals, which refer to wanting as accurate information as possible, and directional goals, which refer to heavily justifying a decision made in order to achieve a particular conclusion. [4] [5] The interaction between these two goals, taking into account the nature of information presented in both time conditions, explains the BIE in decision-making. Specifically, before the decision-making phase, since the individual has not committed to a choice yet, the aim is to achieve a high level of accuracy in information to influence the judgement of outcome of that decision. In contrast, after the decision-making phase is when the action has been taken, which make directional goals more pronounced. This means that the individual would want to feel good about the action taken and believe that the decision would yield positive consequences.

The ambiguity of vague information allows information to be manipulated in favour of the directional goal, which is arriving at the desired conclusion, making it easier to form justifiable reasons that support this goal. In other words, vague information allows the individual to amplify the positive aspects and downplay negative attributes of the information presented in the post decision-making phase. [4] Hence, as the individual switches from accuracy goals to directional goals before and after a decision has been made, vague information helps to build confidence in that decision, which is supported by the BIE.

Possible explanations for the blissful ignorance effect

Vagueness aversion

Findings have shown that individuals try to avoid ambiguity and prefer precise over vague information. [6] However, concrete evidence of vagueness aversion has only been proven in pre-decision phases, before the individual commits to a choice. When projected to post-decision contexts, it is predicted that individuals would be similarly averse to vagueness. [6] This means that the concept of vagueness aversion only accounts for the primary effect of nature of information (precise vs vague) and fails to consider the time factor (before vs after a decision is made). This is incongruent with the BIE theory which suggests that individuals would rather choose vague information in the post-decision phase, and more precise information in the pre-decision phase, which involves the time factor in addition to information nature. Therefore, vagueness aversion may not account for the BIE as time context is not fully taken into account.

Mind-set theory

A second possible explanation is the mind-set theory. This theory [7] proposed that there are two different stages linked with various cognitive mindsets that support an individual's attainment of a goal. The deliberative stage, where the mind considers whether to pursue the goal, and the implementation stage, which takes into account the various circumstances in implementing the selected goal. Deliberative mindsets tend to have an accurate and unbiased analysis of information that aims to select for desirable and feasible goals, [8] but only in the pre-decision phase. In this phase, the individual welcomes all aspects of the information, exercising open information processing. In contrast, the implemental mindset allows for a more biased analysis of information in the post-decision phase. This close-minded information processing means that the individual only considers information in line with their actions, disregarding all irrelevant information. As the mindset theory shows an interaction between the nature of information and time factor to which a decision is made, this proposition aligns with the BIE which purports that the type of information that an individual is willing to process is related to the occurrence of that decision. For example, the preference for precise information in pre-decision phases and likewise, vague information in post-decision phases. Hence, mind-set theory may justify the concept of BIE.

Cognitive dissonance

The third possible explanation for the BIE is using the concept of cognitive dissonance. Dissonance refers to a state where an individual simultaneously possesses two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent, [9] driving the individual to reduce it by changing one or more of the relevant cognitions. [10] For example, if one holds a certain belief in contrast to his actions that prove otherwise, he would aim to reduce this dissonance by altering this belief in accordance with his actions. Therefore, it could be predicted that the post-decision phase increases dissonance through the prospect of regretting a decision made beforehand. To avoid this dissonance, individuals would aim to acquire as vague information as possible after the decision-making process in order to be contented with that decision. However, despite evidence that shows the interplay between the BIE and dissonance theory in justifying certain decisions, it does not predict the shift from accuracy to directional goals between the two time phases [8] which is the main crux of the BIE. Therefore, the cognitive dissonance theory is perhaps unable to fully account for the explanation of the BIE.

Related Research Articles

In linguistics and philosophy, a vague predicate is one which gives rise to borderline cases. For example, the English adjective "tall" is vague since it is not clearly true or false for someone of middling height. By contrast, the word "prime" is not vague since every number is definitively either prime or not. Vagueness is commonly diagnosed by a predicate's ability to give rise to the Sorites paradox. Vagueness is separate from ambiguity, in which an expression has multiple denotations. For instance the word "bank" is ambiguous since it can refer either to a river bank or to a financial institution, but there are no borderline cases between both interpretations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognitive bias</span> Systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, and irrationality.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

Self-perception theory (SPT) is an account of attitude formation developed by psychologist Daryl Bem. It asserts that people develop their attitudes by observing their own behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused it. The theory is counterintuitive in nature, as the conventional wisdom is that attitudes determine behaviors. Furthermore, the theory suggests that people induce attitudes without accessing internal cognition and mood states. The person interprets their own overt behaviors rationally in the same way they attempt to explain others' behaviors.

An implementation intention is a self-regulatory strategy in the form of if-then-plans that can lead to better goal attainment, as well as create useful habits and modify problematic behaviors. It is subordinate to goal intentions as it specifies the when, where and how portions of goal-directed behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ziva Kunda</span> Israeli social psychologist

Ziva Kunda was an Israeli social psychologist and professor at the University of Waterloo known for her work in social cognition and motivated reasoning. Her seminal paper "The Case for Motivated Reasoning", published in Psychological Bulletin in 1990, posthumously received the Scientific Impact Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology. Kunda authored the book Social Cognition: Making Sense of People.

Attitudes are associated beliefs and behaviors towards some object. They are not stable, and because of the communication and behavior of other people, are subject to change by social influences, as well as by the individual's motivation to maintain cognitive consistency when cognitive dissonance occurs—when two attitudes or attitude and behavior conflict. Attitudes and attitude objects are functions of affective and cognitive components. It has been suggested that the inter-structural composition of an associative network can be altered by the activation of a single node. Thus, by activating an affective or emotional node, attitude change may be possible, though affective and cognitive components tend to be intertwined.

Ambivalence is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards some object. Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having an attitude towards someone or something that contains both positively and negatively valenced components. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness.

Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of an expensive item such as a vehicle or real estate.

Gordon Blaine Moskowitz is a social psychologist working in the field of social cognition. He is currently a professor in the Department of Psychology at Lehigh University. His primary research interests are in examining: 1) social inferences which occur with neither the intention of forming an impression nor the awareness that one has done so ; and 2) the non-conscious nature of motivation and goals, with emphasis on how the goals to be egalitarian and creative are more efficiently pursued when one is not consciously trying to pursue them. This work has been applied to the question of how stereotypes impact medical diagnosis and treatment and contribute to health disparities, as well as to how medical training can implement what is known about controlling stereotyping and prejudice to reduce such bias and minimize health disparities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of thought</span> Overview of and topical guide to thought

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to thought (thinking):

Disconfirmed expectancy is a psychological term for what is commonly known as a failed prophecy. According to the American social psychologist Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, disconfirmed expectancies create a state of psychological discomfort because the outcome contradicts expectancy. Upon recognizing the falsification of an expected event an individual will experience the competing cognitions, "I believe [X]," and, "I observed [Y]." The individual must either discard the now disconfirmed belief or justify why it has not actually been disconfirmed. As such, disconfirmed expectancy and the factors surrounding the individual's consequent actions have been studied in various settings.

Selective exposure is a theory within the practice of psychology, often used in media and communication research, that historically refers to individuals' tendency to favorite information which reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information. Selective exposure has also been known and defined as "congeniality bias" or "confirmation bias" in various texts throughout the years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ostrich effect</span> Attempt made by investors to avoid negative financial information

The ostrich effect, also known as the ostrich problem, was originally coined by Galai & Sade (2003). The name comes from the common legend that ostriches bury their heads in the sand to avoid danger. This effect is a cognitive bias where people tend to “bury their head in the sand” and avoid potentially negative but useful information, such as feedback on progress, to avoid psychological discomfort.

In social psychology, a motivated tactician is someone who shifts between quick-and-dirty cognitively economical tactics and more thoughtful, thorough strategies when processing information, depending on the type and degree of motivation. Such behavior is a type of motivated reasoning. The idea has been used to explain why people use stereotyping, biases and categorization in some situations, and more analytical thinking in others.

A goal or objective is an idea of the future or desired result that a person or a group of people envision, plan, and commit to achieve. People endeavour to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.

Self-justification describes how, when a person encounters cognitive dissonance, or a situation in which a person's behavior is inconsistent with their beliefs (hypocrisy), that person tends to justify the behavior and deny any negative feedback associated with the behavior.

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive and social response in which individuals, consciously or unconsciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived. Individuals tend to favor evidence that coincides with their current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence.

Self-persuasion is used to explain one aspect of social influence. This theory postulates that the receiver takes an active role in persuading himself or herself to change his or her attitude. Unlike the direct technique of Persuasion, Self-persuasion is indirect and entails placing people in situations where they are motivated to persuade themselves to change. More specifically what characterizes a self-persuasion situation is that no direct attempt is made to convince anyone of anything. Thus, with self-persuasion, people are convinced that the motivation for change has come from within, so the persuasion factors of another person's influence is irrelevant. Therefore, Self-persuasion is almost always a more powerful form of persuasion than the more traditional persuasion techniques. Self-Persuasion, also has an important influence in Social judgment theory, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Cognitive Dissonance and Narrative paradigm.

Yaacov Schul is an Israeli professor of cognitive and social psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

References

  1. ↑ Schiffman Leon G (1988). Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall of India. p. 95. ISBN   978-81-317-3156-7.
  2. ↑ "Blissfully Ignorant: Skip Those Pesky Details". ScienceDaily.
  3. ↑ Solomon, Michael (2011). Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. p. 318. ISBN   978-0-13-611092-7.
  4. 1 2 Moskowitz, Gordon B. (2004). Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others (Texts in Social Psychology).
  5. ↑ Kunda, Ziva (November 1990). "The Case for Motivated Reasoning" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 108 (3): 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. PMID   2270237. S2CID   9703661.
  6. 1 2 Fox C.R. & Tversky A. (3 August 1995). "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 110 (3): 585–603. doi:10.2307/2946693. JSTOR   2946693.
  7. ↑ Heckhausen H. & Gollwitzer P.M. (1987). "Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind". Motivation and Emotion. 17 (2): 101–120. doi:10.1007/BF00992338. S2CID   143457401.
  8. 1 2 Gollwitzer P.M. (2012). "Mindset Theory of Action Phases". Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: 526–545. doi:10.4135/9781446249215.n26. ISBN   9780857029607. S2CID   140323512.
  9. ↑ Aronson E. (1969). "The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 4: 1–34. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60075-1. ISBN   9780120152049.
  10. ↑ Festinger L. & Carlsmith J.M. (1959). "Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0041593. PMID   13640824.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.