To stay or switch: breaking the habit of status quo through imagery perspective

Abstract

Purpose When consumers imagine themselves in various consumption scenarios, they can do so from the actor or the observer perspective. These different vantage points are known as imagery perspectives. This paper aims to investigate how imagery perspectives can influence consumers’ decisions to stay with the status quo (default option) or to switch to an alternative. Design/methodology/approach A series of four experimental design studies were conducted in both lab and online settings to study consumers’ switching tendency and choice. The empirical testing involved products, brands and services, including cameras (Study 1), vacation hotels (Study 2), toilet paper (Study 3) and food (Study 4). Findings The authors demonstrate that compared with actor imagery that tends to perpetuate the default product and brand choice, observer imagery increases consumers’ tendency to change and switch to new products and brands. Research limitations/implications Due to the methods used in empirical testing, the research results may lack generalizability. Practical implications Marketers spend a considerable amount of resources in an attempt to get consumers to switch products and brands. The results of this paper shed light on how marketers can promote switching behaviors through imagery perspective. Originality/value The research contributes to the streams of research in mental imagery, de-biasing and status quos, which have progressed in isolation from one another to date. This research is one of the first to investigate imagery perspective in the context of choice architecture.

Status-quo satisfaction and smartwatch adoption: a multi-group analysis

“…Ghazali (2011) and Ghazali et al (2011) indicated that habits, or inertia, in the context of online purchasing, were "mindless" actions evolving from multiple "reasoned" or "mindful" actions in the past. Saine et al (2018) used the term "habitual inertia", suggesting it results from overvaluation of sunk costs, cognitive miserliness, and the inclination to maintaining control through constancy. Meanwhile, Jolley et al (2006) considered satisfaction with earlier behaviour to influence habitual behaviour, Status-quo satisfaction and smartwatch adoption reinforcing inertia (Nel and Boshoff, 2019); thus, habits were considered conceptually different from inertia.…”

Visual Design Cues Impacting Food Choice: A Review and Future Research Agenda

“…First, the stimulus can be positioned with respect to the viewer as if the viewer is using or consuming the stimulus (i.e., first person perspective) or as if somebody else does (i.e., third person perspective). The third-person imagery perspective occurs when an individual sees himself in the image from the visual perspective that an external observer would have, looking in from the outside, whereas the first-person imagery perspective occurs when the individual adopts a natural visual perspective, looking out at the situation through his own eyes [ 323 , 324 , 325 ]. Similarly, according to Saine et al [ 325 ] when people imagine themselves in various consumption scenarios, they can do so from the actor perspective (i.e., first person) or the observer perspective (i.e., third person).…”

“…Saine et al [ 325 ] show that third person (vs. first-person) simulation were characterized by (1) switching to an alternative instead of staying with the status quo (default option), (2) fewer sensory components, (3) worse attitudes , and (4) a decreased willingness to pay for tempting foods. Seeing products from a third versus first perspective could also shrink perceptions of objects, such as money and time [ 326 , 327 ], possibly leading to more negative product perceptions and behavioural outcomes (FR 67).…”

“…The research of Saine et al [ 325 ] put forward that it is easier to simulate first (vs. third person) perspectives. Furthermore, the brain regions associated with reward processing are more active when imagining the taste of a tempting food compared to viewing it passively [ 328 ].…”

“…Given that a third-person point of view deemphasizes the sensations and neural activations caused by imagined eating experience, this form of simulation is less likely to produce the feelings of reward that heighten motivation to consume [ 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 ]. Saine et al [ 325 ] point out that future neuroimaging studies will be instrumental in explicating how the activation of the so called ‘pleasure centres’ of the brain, in relation with those regions involved with self-control, influence the relationship between the visual perspective adopted during imaginary eating and actual consumption (FR 68). Also they call for research on the crucial role of third-person imagery as a buffer from the low-level sensations (e.g., imagined pleasure or pain) that lead people to engage in goal-incongruent behaviours.…”