The Devaluation Effect: Activating a Need Devalues Unrelated Objects: Figure 1

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that an object capable of satisfying a need will be perceived as subjectively more valuable as the need for it intensifies. For example, the more active the need to eat, the more valuable food will become. This outcome could be called a valuation effect. In this article, we suggest a second basic influence of needs on evaluations: that activating a focal need (e.g., to eat) makes objects unrelated to that need (e.g., shampoo) less valuable, an outcome we refer to as the devaluation effect. Two existing studies support the existence of a devaluation effect using manipulations of the need to eat and to smoke and measuring attractiveness of consumer products and willingness to purchase raffle tickets. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that consumers are not aware of the devaluation effect and its influence on their preferences.

Goal Reversion in Consumer Choice

“…This method is consistent with others that have inferred goal activation from revealed preferences (e.g., Brendl, Markman, and Messner 2003;Fishbach, Dhar, and Zhang 2006;Markman and Brendl 2000), only it uses emerging preferences to infer goal activation levels during the choice process. If goal shielding dominates during the set-aside period, we should observe little reversion back to the initially preferred option (i.e., little flip-flopping).…”

When approach motivation and behavioral inhibition collide: Behavior regulation through stimulus devaluation

“…Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2003;Fenske & Raymond, 2006). Most related to the current research is research in the domain of (selective) visual attention that has examined the affective consequences of attentional inhibition (e.g.…”

When Affect Supports Cognitive Control – A Working Memory Perspective

“…In contrast, when distractors or contents that have been unambiguously evaluated as irrelevant or overloading operational resources enter attention, they are marked with negative affect, supporting inhibition and their subsequent exclusion from the scope of attention (Brendl, Markman, Messner, 2003;Raymond, Fenske, Westoby, 2005). In the prevention focus task solving strategies are more analytical and effortful (than in the promotion focus), which increases the likelihood of operational overload, along with negative affects, promoting disengagement ("evicting" unnecessary contents out of scope of attention).…”

“…Activating a focal need (e.g., to eat) made objects unrelated to that need (e.g., shampoo) less valuable (Brendl, Markman & Messner, 2003). It is thus nonfunctional objects, irrelevant for the goal, and even more so distractors, directly interfering with the target stimulus, that undergo devaluation.…”