IKEA effect

Last updated
A man assembling an Ikea Poang chair Assembling an Ikea poang chair (9055631329).jpg
A man assembling an Ikea Poäng chair

The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created. The name refers to Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA, which sells many items of furniture that require assembly.

Contents

A 2011 study found that subjects were willing to pay 63% more for furniture they had assembled themselves than for equivalent pre-assembled items. [1]

History and background

The IKEA effect was identified and named by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School, Daniel Mochon of Yale, and Dan Ariely of Duke, who published the results of three studies in 2011. They described the IKEA effect as "labor alone can be sufficient to induce greater liking for the fruits of one's labor: even constructing a standardized bureau, an arduous, solitary task, can lead people to overvalue their (often poorly constructed) creations."

Norton, Mochon, and Ariely cited other researchers' previous work on "effort justification" which had demonstrated that the more effort someone put into something, the more someone will value it. This phenomenon had been observed by Leon Festinger (1957) and in realms ranging from psychotherapy (Axsom & Cooper, 1985) and brainwashing (Schein, 1956). [2]

Product designers were familiar with the IKEA effect long before it was given a name. [3] Norton and his colleagues noted that, while not yet named or scientifically established, it had been recognized by marketers for a long time. Norton and his fellow researchers cited the Build-a-Bear product, which allows people to make their own teddy bears. Many consumers enjoy this option, even though they are charged a high price for a product for which, thanks to their labor, the manufacturer does not have to pay production costs. In addition, the researchers pointed out the popularity of "haycations," whereby city people pay to do farmers' work for them. In all these cases, the researchers posit, people seem more willing to pay for an item into which they have put a degree of their own labor.

The researchers pointed out that as a result of earlier consumer psychology studies that essentially pointed to the existence of the IKEA effect, many firms transitioned from viewing consumers as "recipients of value" to instead "co-creators of value." One element of this shift was the involvement of consumers in product design, marketing, and testing.

A 1959 study by Aronson and Mills that has been described as a "classic" produced results that seem to reflect either the IKEA effect or a closely related phenomenon. Female participants were required to undergo "no initiation, a mild initiation, or severe initiation" before entering a discussion group. The women's later appraisal of the group's value was proportional to the effort that had been demanded of them before being allowed into the group.

Citing other researchers' work demonstrating "a fundamental human need for effectance—an ability to successfully produce desired outcomes in one's environment," Norton et al. argued that "one means by which people accomplish this goal is by affecting and controlling objects and possessions." They placed special emphasis on Bandura's "seminal" 1977 study showing that "successful completion of tasks" was a "crucial means by which people can meet their goal to feel competent and in control." [2]

Experiments by Norton et al.

Norton and his colleagues conducted research to find out if consumers would pay higher prices for products that required self-assembly. [1] The research consisted of three different experiments in which the participants built Lego items, folded origami figures and assembled IKEA boxes.

In the first part of the experiment, part of the subjects were given the task of assembling IKEA furniture, while others were allowed to examine a pre-built version of the same furniture. Researchers then asked the participants to price the items. The results showed that the subjects who built the furniture were willing to pay 63% more than the ones who were given pre-built furniture.

In a second part of the experiment, researchers asked subjects to make either origami frogs or cranes, following a provided instruction sheet. They then asked the subjects how much they were willing to pay for their own work. Researchers then gathered another group of subjects who had not taken part in the origami creation. The new subjects were asked how much they were willing to pay for an origami built by the participants. Following this, the researchers displayed origami made by experts to another set of non-builders and asked them how much they were willing to pay for it. It was found that the builders were willing to pay about five times more for their own creation than the non-builders were, as expected from the first part of the experiment. When asked how much somebody else would pay for their origami, the builders also gave a high price to their work, showing that they actually think that the origami has a high value. The second set of non-builders were willing to pay for the well-crafted origami about as much as the builders were willing to pay for their origami.

The third and final experiment involved two sets of subjects. The first set were told to completely assemble a piece of IKEA furniture. The second set were also instructed to assemble a piece of IKEA furniture, but only partially. Both groups then took part in bidding over these objects. Results showed that individuals who had built the box completely were willing to pay more than the individuals who had only partially built an item. [2]

Conclusions by Norton et al.

The experiments by Norton and his colleagues demonstrated that self-assembly affects the evaluation of a product by its consumers. The results suggest that when people construct a particular product themselves, even if they do a poor job of it, they value the end result more than if they had not put any effort into its creation. [4]

Participants, wrote Norton and his colleagues, "saw their amateurish creations as similar in value to experts' creations, and expected others to share their opinions." To be sure, "labor leads to love only when labor results in successful completion of tasks; when participants built and then destroyed their creations, or failed to complete them, the IKEA effect dissipated." The researchers also concluded "that labor increases valuation for both 'do-it-yourselfers' and novices."

The researchers noted that their use of "simple IKEA boxes and Lego sets that did not permit customization" did not prevent participants from manifesting the IKEA effect. [2]

Later research

Gibbs and Drolet (2003) showed that raising consumers' energy levels can persuade them to select experiences that involve greater effort. But companies have been warned not to challenge consumers too much, lest they be unable to complete a task and thus end up dissatisfied.

Research by Dahl and Moreau (2007) suggests that customers are more satisfied when there is a limit to the amount of creativity they can express in assembling a product. [2]

Causes

One factor is that "self-assembly of products may allow people to both feel competent and display evidence of that competence." Also, the idea that they are "saving money by buying products that require some assembly" may make them feel like "smart shoppers." [2]

Other possible explanations for the IKEA effect have been suggested, such as "a focus on the product's positive attributes, and the relationship between effort and liking." The IKEA effect is one of several cognitive biases that seem to reflect a causative link between perceived effort and valuation. [5]

The work by Norton et al. demonstrated that participants' valuing of products was not caused by ownership of them or by "greater time spent touching them." [2]

Examples

The IKEA effect is thought to contribute to the sunk costs effect, which occurs when managers continue to devote resources to sometimes failing projects they have invested their labor in. The effect is also related to the "not invented here" (or "NIH", or even "NIH syndrome"), where managers disregard good ideas developed elsewhere, in favor of (possibly inferior) internally developed ideas. [2]

Writer Tyler Tervooren realized that he was witnessing an example of the IKEA effect when he toured a house that was for sale at a price that was "at least $30,000 too much" and discovered that the reason why the owner overvalued the house so dramatically was that she had "had the home built herself and customized every aspect of it to her taste." But while she regarded the house as "a masterpiece," Tervooren "saw a house like any other but with paint colors I'd never choose." Tervooren realized that he, too, had fallen victim to the IKEA effect on various occasions: "I had a special bond with my old car because I always worked on it myself. And when my iPhone broke down last year, I pulled it apart and learned to fix it so I could keep using it." [6]

The IKEA effect may be said to manifest itself in situations when programmers have been invited to help (without payment) in creating open-source programs and operating systems, such as Linux. [2]

Animals

The IKEA effect has also been observed in animals, such as rats and starlings, which prefer to obtain food from sources that required effort on their part (Kacelnik & Marsh, 2002; Lawrence & Festinger, 1962). [2]

Business

Tervooren has advised business owners that they "can reap massive rewards by putting the IKEA effect to work for your customers. Whenever you can, let them customize the products and services you offer to fit their needs. Make them feel like their own creativity and effort went into getting what they need from you. They'll pay more for it." [6]

A Forbes 2012 article counseled marketers that "if your customers put your product together, they'll like it more" but added that "an assembly process that is clear and free of frustration is essential." [7]

Computer app designers have been advised to take advantage of the IKEA effect by providing "sample data, pre-filled defaults, and editable templates to help make your app feel animated with content and connections, and alive to users. Then use email triggers, prompts, and guidance to get people to interact with that content—even if it's just to move a card around on a board or reply to an email. This helps to lower the fear and frustration of dealing with a new product while increasing capabilities." The manufacturers of such computer products as Wistia, Basecamp, and iDoneThis have been guided by the IKEA effect in introducing them to the public. [8]

Consumers

Norton and his colleagues warned that the IKEA effect could lead people to overvalue their own belongings when offering them for sale. For example, "people may see the improvements they have made to their homes—such as the brick walkways they laid by hand—as increasing the value of the house far more than buyers, who see only a shoddily-built walkway." [2]

On the other hand, a 2012 article in Psychology Today suggested that "if you're having a hard time deciding between buying something pre-built or putting it together yourself, the extra work that might not seem worth it now might very well put a smile on your face when it's all done. Saving yourself the labor could just cost you some happiness." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IKEA</span> Swedish multinational retail conglomerate

Inter IKEA Systems B.V., trading as IKEA, is a Swedish multinational conglomerate that designs and sells ready-to-assemble furniture, kitchen appliances, decoration, home accessories, and various other goods and home services. Started in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad and currently legally headquartered in the Netherlands, IKEA has been the world's largest furniture retailer since 2008. The brand used by the group is derived from an acronym that consists of the founder's initials, and those of Elmtaryd, the family farm where he was born, and the nearby village Agunnaryd.

In political philosophy, the means of production refers to the generally necessary assets and resources that enable a society to engage in production. While the exact resources encompassed in the term may vary, it is widely agreed to include the classical factors of production as well as the general infrastructure and capital goods necessary to reproduce stable levels of productivity. It can also be used as an abbreviation of the "means of production and distribution" which additionally includes the logistical distribution and delivery of products, generally through distributors; or as an abbreviation of the "means of production, distribution, and exchange" which further includes the exchange of distributed products, generally to consumers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loss aversion</span> Overall description of loss aversion theory

Loss aversion is a psychological and economic concept, which refers to how outcomes are interpreted as gains and losses where losses are subject to more sensitivity in people's responses compared to equivalent gains acquired. Kahneman and Tversky (1992) suggested that losses can be twice as powerful psychologically as gains.

The anchoring effect is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant. Both numeric and non-numeric anchoring have been reported in research. In numeric anchoring, once the value of the anchor is set, subsequent arguments, estimates, etc. made by an individual may change from what they would have otherwise been without the anchor. For example, an individual may be more likely to purchase a car if it is placed alongside a more expensive model. Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market value of the car. Another example may be when estimating the orbit of Mars, one might start with the Earth's orbit and then adjust upward until they reach a value that seems reasonable.

In psychology and behavioral economics, the endowment effect is the finding that people are more likely to retain an object they own than acquire that same object when they do not own it. The endowment theory can be defined as "an application of prospect theory positing that loss aversion associated with ownership explains observed exchange asymmetries."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ready-to-assemble furniture</span> Furniture that requires assembly upon opening

Ready-to-assemble furniture (RTA), also known as knock-down furniture (KD), flat-pack furniture, or kit furniture, is a form of furniture that requires customer assembly. The separate components are packed for sale in cartons which also contain assembly instructions and sometimes hardware. The furniture is generally simple to assemble with basic tools such as hex keys, which are also sometimes included. Ready-to-assemble furniture is popular with consumers who wish to save money by assembling the product themselves.

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1980. The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change. The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.

A lifestyle brand is a brand that attempts to embody the values, aspirations, interests, attitudes, or opinions of a group or a culture for marketing purposes. Lifestyle brands seek to inspire, guide, and motivate people, with the goal of making their products contribute to the definition of the consumer's way of life. As such, they are closely associated with the advertising and other promotions used to gain mind share in their target market. They often operate from an ideology, hoping to attract a relatively high number of people and ultimately become a recognised social phenomenon.

In behavioral economics, willingness to pay (WTP) is the maximum price at or below which a consumer will definitely buy one unit of a product. This corresponds to the standard economic view of a consumer reservation price. Some researchers, however, conceptualize WTP as a range.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dan Ariely</span> Israeli-American professor of psychology and behavioral economics

Dan Ariely is an Israeli-American professor and author. He serves as a James B. Duke Professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. Ariely is the co-founder of several companies implementing insights from behavioral science. Ariely wrote an advice column called Ask Ariely in the WSJ from June 2012 until September 2022. Ariely is the author of the three New York Times best selling books Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality and The Honest Truth about Dishonesty. He co-produced the 2015 documentary (Dis)Honesty: The Truth About Lies.

The effort heuristic is a mental rule of thumb in which the quality or worth of an object is determined from the perceived amount of effort that went into producing that object. In brief, the effort heuristic follows a tendency to judge objects that took a longer time to produce to be of higher value. The more effort invested in an object, the better it is deemed to be. This is especially true in situations where value is difficult to assess or the evaluator lacks expertise in the appraisement of an item. People use whatever information is available to them and effort is thought to generally be a reliable indicator of quality.

<i>Predictably Irrational</i> 2008 book by Dan Ariely

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions is a 2008 book by Dan Ariely, in which he challenges readers' assumptions about making decisions based on rational thought. Ariely explains, "My goal, by the end of this book, is to help you fundamentally rethink what makes you and the people around you tick. I hope to lead you there by presenting a wide range of scientific experiments, findings, and anecdotes that are in many cases quite amusing. Once you see how systematic certain mistakes are—how we repeat them again and again—I think you will begin to learn how to avoid some of them".

In economics, willingness to accept (WTA) is the minimum monetary amount that а person is willing to accept to sell a good or service, or to bear a negative externality, such as pollution. This is in contrast to willingness to pay (WTP), which is the maximum amount of money a consumer is willing to sacrifice to purchase a good/service or avoid something undesirable. The price of any transaction will thus be any point between a buyer's willingness to pay and a seller's willingness to accept; the net difference is the economic surplus.

The denomination effect is a form of cognitive bias relating to currency, suggesting people may be less likely to spend larger currency denominations than their equivalent value in smaller denominations. It was proposed by Priya Raghubir, professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, and Joydeep Srivastava, professor at University of Maryland, in their 2009 paper "Denomination Effect".

Query theory (QT) is a theory that proposes that preferences are constructed, rather than pre-stored and immediately retrievable by individuals in accordance with the answers to one or more internally posed questions, or queries. Further, the order of such queries is dependent on the structure of the choice situation or task, and can influence retrieval of information, leading to different decisions. This is a descriptive model that attempts to explain why individuals make a decision, rather than propose an optimal decision.

In psychology, ownership is the feeling that something is yours. Psychological ownership is distinct from legal ownership: for example, one may feel that one's cubicle at work is theirs and no one else's, even though legal ownership of the cubicle is actually conferred on the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Norton (professor)</span> American professor

Michael Irwin Norton is the Harold M. Brierley Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also known for identifying and naming the IKEA effect.

Global furniture and homeware retailer IKEA has been criticized for various issues, including their raw material sourcing, the size of their stores, the impact of their stores on local communities, legal violations, and unfair or discriminatory business practices, among others.

The gift-exchange game, also commonly known as the gift exchange dilemma, is a common economic game introduced by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen to model reciprocacy in labor relations. The gift-exchange game simulates a labor-management relationship execution problem in the principal-agent problem in labor economics. The simplest form of the game involves two players – an employee and an employer. The employer first decides whether they should award a higher salary to the employee. The employee then decides whether to reciprocate with a higher level of effort due to the salary increase or not. Like trust games, gift-exchange games are used to study reciprocity for human subject research in social psychology and economics. If the employer pays extra salary and the employee puts in extra effort, then both players are better off than otherwise. The relationship between an investor and an investee has been investigated as the same type of a game.

The uncertainty effect, also known as direct risk aversion, is a phenomenon from economics and psychology which suggests that individuals may be prone to expressing such an extreme distaste for risk that they ascribe a lower value to a risky prospect than its worst possible realization.

References

  1. 1 2 Berman, Jillian (26 September 2011). "The IKEA Effect: Study Finds Consumers Over-Value Products They Build Themselves". The Huffington Post. BuzzFeed, Inc. Retrieved 1 February 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Norton, Michael; Mochon, Daniel; Ariely, Dan (9 September 2011). "The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love" (PDF). Journal of Consumer Psychology. 22 (3): 453–460. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002 . Retrieved 18 March 2017.
  3. Landers, Richard (2012). "Unfolding the IKEA Effect: Why We Love the Things We Build". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 22 (3): 453–460. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002 . Retrieved 18 March 2017.
  4. Dibeehi, Qaalfa (14 March 2013). "Ever Heard of the IKEA Effect? Increasing perceived value while reducing costs". Beyond Philosophy. Archived from the original on 15 March 2013. Retrieved 21 March 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  5. "IKEA effect". Behavioral Economics. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
  6. 1 2 Tervooren, Tyler (24 February 2015). "Ikea Effect: The Science Of Labor, Love, And DIY Furniture". Riskology. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
  7. Dooley, Roger (3 July 2012). "Build Product Love with the IKEA Effect". Forbes. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
  8. Choi, Janet (5 March 2015). "How to Activate New Customers With the IKEA Effect". Customer.io. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
  9. Carter, Travis J. (13 September 2012). "The IKEA Effect: Why We Cherish Things We Build". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC. Retrieved 5 February 2023.